Every now and then, Warmachine players discuss whether the game needs a Mk III, or maybe a Mk II Remix, or some kind of increased focus on model balance errata. The game has a number of flaws - internal faction balance, terrain rules and reliance on poorly-curated infernal rulings to name a few popular ones - but I am increasingly convinced that one rarely-mentioned problem overshadows and even contributes strongly to many of these issues:

Piece trading.

Or, put differently, the tendency for a model to fly across the table at incredible speed, obliterating one of the opposing number instantly with no chance of retaliation but by the surviving members of the army. This happens with almost all unit types - unit members charge across the table and instantly kill opposing unit members, warcasters kill enemy warcasters in one turn and warjacks and especially warbeasts generally must be able to kill similar weight-class models in one round or not be taken at all. Far from the pictures on the front covers of the books or promotional material, you will not see two warcasters engaged in an epic melee, or two warbeasts trading bone-shattering punches. Instead, one will zip across the table and instantly obliterate the other - or, occasionally, will fail and be killed in one turn itself.

There is little combat interplay between opposing pieces, because the rules don't really support it - the interplay has to be between the piece and the surviving members of the other army. Worse, this causes other issues. Many warjacks and warbeasts are obsolete because they rarely do enough damage to kill an opposing warjack or warbeast in one round. A core reason that terrain is absurdly punishing for some lists and not for others is that getting the first hit is so strong, because whoever you hit will be dead. Non-reach warbeasts are often bad in part because they are so likely to never see a second round, meaning the first urgently has to count.

What would a change to this look like? Personally, I think it would have to do away with the turn structure where one player's entire army moves while the other's stands stone-still waiting for its turn to begin. At the very least, models would need to be able to retaliate against enemies that are attacking them. At the more extreme end, we could see something like the Lord of the Rings game where both sides in a combat get to fight - there's no "active player" striking the enemy while the other watches passively.

I do not think this is an easy problem to fix. Unfortunately, it would also require a pretty large departure from the current rules, making it even less likely that a solution will be sought at all.

Do you think my assessment is correct? Do you feel the same way? Do you just love piece trading? It does have one potential upside - without it, it would be hard to pull off last-ditch assassinations. On the other hand, the ability to kill things in one round is often what causes one player to be so far behind to begin with.

I think your concern is valid, but over blown.

The current rules mechanics are about as good as I think they could get. The only area which needs improvement is internal balance. Certain units and models are far too weak when there is no reason for them to be.

I can't fault PP for occasionally messing up on a unit's rules when it gets released, nobody's perfect, but I do fault them for not rectifying issues that become obvious after the fact. Given how the rules for individual models are released, using errata to fix models which are too weak is an easy thing to do. They've done a little of it, but not enough.

I think this is partially caused by PP being a little too cautious with their releases. Many recently released miniatures over the last few cycles have been conspicuously missing rules, where its obvious it was stronger in the playtesting and then got overnerfed without further testing before release.

We don't need Mk3. We just need maybe a year or so of PP going back and fixing miniatures they messed up the rules for.

Would be cool if both models would get to strike in a fight. It sucks sometimes when you sit there getting your war jacks face smashed in hoping it survives. But the game does offer things that make you survive that initial attack like enliven. So there is ways to survive but Iam not sure if all factions have access to that ability

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think your concern is valid, but over blown.

The current rules mechanics are about as good as I think they could get. The only area which needs improvement is internal balance. Certain units and models are far too weak when there is no reason for them to be.

I can't fault PP for occasionally messing up on a unit's rules when it gets released, nobody's perfect, but I do fault them for not rectifying issues that become obvious after the fact. Given how the rules for individual models are released, using errata to fix models which are too weak is an easy thing to do. They've done a little of it, but not enough.

I think this is partially caused by PP being a little too cautious with their releases. Many recently released miniatures over the last few cycles have been conspicuously missing rules, where its obvious it was stronger in the playtesting and then got overnerfed without further testing before release.

We don't need Mk3. We just need maybe a year or so of PP going back and fixing miniatures they messed up the rules for.

Do you want me to mark you down for the "loves piece trading" column, then?

I don't think the game will ever be "as good as it can get" with things getting killed in one go all over the place. Let me make an argument here from one thing I think Warmachine does very right.

To me, one of the coolest things about Warmachine is how evocative its rules are. By that I mean: the rules don't necessarily simulate the models well, but they very effectively capture the feel of them. Whether it's a warjack throwing another across the table, a necrosurgeon shielded by a cloud of mechanithralls, a wall of shocktroopers firing as they advance in shield wall or ravagers eating the hearts of their enemies, the models' rules make them come alive in a way that's really special.

Models - especially the big, important ones like casters and beasts - killing other models in one hit with no interplay is a failure to be evocative.

The box does not feature, for example, a gladiator flying across the table and assassinating a mauler like a ninja with an eight-hit combo. They are fighting each other. We are meant to believe these are incredibly tough and powerful combatants pounding away at each other, but that is not what is represented on the tabletop at all. It's not simulation that's missing, though that suffers too. It's a failure to bring the fantasy to life.

Bringing the fantasy to life is one of the most important things the game can do, and it's something that in many other areas the game does very well. But in this one respect, it fails dramatically to do so.

Piece trading is a perfectly valid way to play the game. It doesn't make the game bad.

Chess is 100% about piece trading. And its probably as close to a perfect game as you could get.

 Chute82 wrote:
Would be cool if both models would get to strike in a fight. It sucks sometimes when you sit there getting your war jacks face smashed in hoping it survives. But the game does offer things that make you survive that initial attack like enliven. So there is ways to survive but Iam not sure if all factions have access to that ability

In the Lord of the Rings game, when two models fight they basically have a contested roll to see who wins, and then the winner gets to strike at the loser to try to do damage, then push them away an inch. I guess the closest analogy in Warmachine was if two models in melee each rolled to hit each other, and then whoever got the highest result rolled damage. It's a little different to that, but that's the gist!

I'm not 100% sure why buying attacks exists to begin with. It's pretty zany and has never seemed to make a lot of thematic sense. It's certainly the cause of most killing of heavies and casters in one round. It's not the whole problem, though, as infantry do have the same issue.

Maybe it'd be interesting if models could simultaneously strike at their attackers, letting them use their initials or buy attacks in the opposing player's turn as well as their own. Sounds bloody, though!

 Grey Templar wrote:
Piece trading is a perfectly valid way to play the game. It doesn't make the game bad.

Chess is 100% about piece trading. And its probably as close to a perfect game as you could get.

I am not sure what you're really replying to. I am not talking about how to play the game - piece trading is a really important part of how you play, and if you're playing Warmachine you should be making piece trades, because you play the game as it is, not how it could perhaps be. Killing things in one round is a really powerful ability, and it warps the rest of the game around it. There is another thread about satyrs close to the top right now, and part of why satyrs are not very good is they are bad at killing other heavies in one round, and in a world where killing heavies in one round is possible, not being able to puts you at a serious disadvantage. In my experience, that is very bad for model diversity. It is also not very fun. Like I said, it breaks the fantasy. I don't think many people got into Warmachine for heavies flying across the table and killing other heavies in one hit.

I haven't said that a game with piece trading is bad. I haven't said Warmachine is bad. I have asserted that piece trading is its most grievous flaw, though I stress I'm much more interested in discussing how people feel about piece trading in Warmachine than which flaw of Warmachine's is the greatest.

You actually wouldn't want to fix this by letting models strike back at models that are attacking them. That would make the game heavily skew towards durability as you'd want your heavy to be tough enough to take some retaliatory hits without getting crippled so it could kill the enemy.

I think piece trading is fine because it focuses the game on positioning and outmaneuvering your opponent. If models got to fight back it would really degenerate into a punching match in the middle of the board and positioning wouldn't matter as much.

Hmm, I dunno.

Removing the alpha and the ability to utterly kill something (not just warbeasts, but infantry models....) changes the game. It stops it being a highly aggressive game with the focus on over the top violence and, as matt wilson says 'beating the scrap out of things'. There is no such thing as 'excessive force'. And you also risk replacing the problems of excessive force with making the game feel like Care Bears having a pillow fight. (Expect to see posts like 'I remember when my stuff in WMH was over the top violent - you know, then it can go it, and get work done. It was awesome. Now all they do is slap each other around a bit. Over the top mayhem? Pfft!')

Having models fight each other, and react to each other in a system where 'it's alwaya your turn' could breed problems. You complain about beasts being redundant because they can't kill stuff in one turn (I disagree btw - beasts are valued for more than just damage output. There's fury banks, animi, wound sinks etc), but having a 'fight it out' system simply puts the focus on the handful of beasts/jacks with high mat and reach and let's them dominate instead. It's not wrong - it works in infinity - but I don't think it works in warmachine without, well, not making it WARMACHINE.

Similarly, removing the turn structure destroys one of the core features of this game - the ability to build synergy chains.

I simply do not see piece trading as an issue. It works for chess. Models should be kill able with over the top violence. I'm not against mark2 remix. The game is fantastically well balanced and fun. But there are mistakes and outliers. Some points costs need to be readjusted, som casters need toned down/up and the rules for colossals and bsttle engines need to be written into the main rules, not expansions. Overall though, it's a tweak that's needed, not a new edition.

Deadnight wrote:
Hmm, I dunno.

Removing the alpha and the ability to utterly kill something (not just warbeasts, but infantry models....) changes the game. It stops it being a highly aggressive game with the focus on over the top violence and, as matt wilson says 'beating the scrap out of things'. There is no such thing as 'excessive force'. And you also risk replacing the problems of excessive force with making the game feel like Care Bears having a pillow fight. (Expect to see posts like 'I remember when my stuff in WMH was over the top violent - you know, then it can go it, and get work done. It was awesome. Now all they do is slap each other around a bit. Over the top mayhem? Pfft!')

I agree. I don't think you can just change it and call it a day - there are other issues too that it could make more prominent. There are some combinations of models that are already close to invincible except against extremely specialised armour cracking. There's a lot of damage differential in the game already, and just bringing the top down could be unsatisfying.

I don't think there's anything more violent about one model assassinating another model like a ninja instead of having to brawl it out, though.

Deadnight wrote:
Having models fight each other, and react to each other in a system where 'it's alwaya your turn' could breed problems. You complain about beasts being redundant because they can't kill stuff in one turn (I disagree btw - beasts are valued for more than just damage output. There's fury banks, animi, wound sinks etc), but having a 'fight it out' system simply puts the focus on the handful of beasts/jacks with high mat and reach and let's them dominate instead. It's not wrong - it works in infinity - but I don't think it works in warmachine without, well, not making it WARMACHINE.

Similarly, removing the turn structure destroys one of the core features of this game - the ability to build synergy chains.

I don't think there's anything about a more interleaved turn structure that is anti-synergy. Maybe synergy in the Convergence sense, but everything else would be very similar. It just wouldn't entail one model killing another with no retaliation as much. Similarly, I don't think it would necessarily be any less violent or damaging. Letting you take initials and buy additional attacks on your opponent's turn, for instance, would mean more damage going out overall, not less. I actually really want to try that out, now!

What it would mean is that mobility was about setting up favorable matchups rather than about being able to outright remove an opponent's model for free.

Thanks for your thoughts, too!

I think alternating activation games are cool, but the mechanic itself requires the entire game to be designed from the ground up to accommodate it that it would require the entire game to be redesigned. In which case you haven't fixed the game so much as just started over.

Lots of existing rules would just have to get rewritten since round and player turn duration are important for timing of effects and such. Alternating activations would totally screw with all of those.

Hive Fleet- I think that you are over generalizing and therefore making it very hard to carry on a discussion. Yes, there are some models that can have a threat range of 15" or there abouts but they are not as common as you seem to imply by saying they fly across the table. If you mean that they can move 10" and kill something and then retreat you are still talking about a few models or circumstances. So, I have to believe that your base assessment is incorrect and therefore the rest of your problem is baseless.

Also you say "that some combinations of models that are close to invincible" except to a few counters. Again, I challenge you to be more specific. I would say that you are flat out wrong in this perception without that specificity. I would contend that this "invulnerablility" might last for a turn but you are implying that it is constant thoughout the game. AFAIK there is nothing that can't be taken down with using some common troops/tactics.This is in direct contention with your "It's common for model/units fly across the table and destroy with impunity" complaint. If the unit/model can destroy everything/anything then there can't be invincible units. And vice versa. If a unit/model is invincible then it can't be destroyed by models/units that fly across the board and destroy it with impunity.

So, please indulge me and give me some specifics that I can respond to when you state your case. While either or both of the situations can occur they are not common and can usually be dealt with in a relatively easy manner.

To OP, I don't think the style of game is a 'problem.'

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think alternating activation games are cool, but the mechanic itself requires the entire game to be designed from the ground up to accommodate it that it would require the entire game to be redesigned. In which case you haven't fixed the game so much as just started over.

Lots of existing rules would just have to get rewritten since round and player turn duration are important for timing of effects and such. Alternating activations would totally screw with all of those.

That is possible. I don't think it's an easy problem to fix from the standpoint of an established game. That does not mean it's not a flaw, though.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Hive Fleet- I think that you are over generalizing and therefore making it very hard to carry on a discussion. Yes, there are some models that can have a threat range of 15" or there abouts but they are not as common as you seem to imply by saying they fly across the table. If you mean that they can move 10" and kill something and then retreat you are still talking about a few models or circumstances. So, I have to believe that your base assessment is incorrect and therefore the rest of your problem is baseless.

Flying across the table was just a turn of phrase. For the purposes of the discussion, it doesn't really matter how far the model moves to get there. It could be a SPD 4 'jack walking into melee with another. What I am getting at is that there is no interplay between the two models - one gets into melee and simply obliterates the other without reprisal, which is totally contrary to the fantasy the game is trying to sell.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Also you say "that some combinations of models that are close to invincible" except to a few counters. Again, I challenge you to be more specific. I would say that you are flat out wrong in this perception without that specificity. I would contend that this "invulnerablility" might last for a turn but you are implying that it is constant thoughout the game. AFAIK there is nothing that can't be taken down with using some common troops/tactics.This is in direct contention with your "It's common for model/units fly across the table and destroy with impunity" complaint. If the unit/model can destroy everything/anything then there can't be invincible units. And vice versa. If a unit/model is invincible then it can't be destroyed by models/units that fly across the board and destroy it with impunity.

Sorry, it seems like there has been a miscommunication. I'm not saying that models are destroyed "with impunity" - the heavy that kills the other heavy in one turn is often itself killed on the next turn. And that's the problem. There's so little interplay between models in a game that's ostensibly about models smashing into each other. Instead, it's one model killing another in one hit, followed by another model killing it in one hit in retaliation, and so on and so forth. That breaks the fantasy, and it contributes to other issues with the gameplay.

Part of piece trading is, like in chess, a balancing act. If you can kill my model with yours there are things to consider. Are you willing to trade your model for mine? Will you moving to attack me allow me to kill your caster since your model is now out of place? Has your model left a zone so that I can now dominate that zone and score control points? While there may be no direct confrontation of models the game is about more than one model in an army. You have to consider the ramifications of each piece's actions in relation both to your army and mine.

Don't forget that the game is representative of a sliver of a battle (in most cases). You can look at it as one piece vs another or you can imagine it like the fluff. Your Bronzeback tears into my Juggernaught and before my Juggernaught can react your Bronzeback manages to lay several heavy blows into it rendering it useless. Don't forget when a system on a jack goes down that system is rendered damaged but not destroyed or obliterated. The same for a jack in general. Marking off all the boxes does not necessarily mean the Jack is truely destroyed merely not operable in the immediate time frame. The same with beasts. If all of the branches are marked off the beast may have lost its will to fight or may simply run off. It isn't always dead.

I realize the mechanics may make it seem like it's one hit and that's it but it is up to you to fill in the action with fluff as you see it.

Your asessment is correct in as far as "The game doesn't support round-to-round slug fests between big models" and "Models are oftened judged by their ability to net you a gain in a piece trade" are true. However you can't really say this is a "Flaw" in Warmachine. This is because your assessment that this would require something like an overhaul of the turn structure to "correct" (and it would take that and more, given the complaint is about what happens in the context of single activations) is also true.

The issue is that your "flaw" here is just a natural implication of everything the game engine is set up to do. It's like saying the one grievous flaw in bananas is that they're yellow and filled filled with a soft sugary substance. That's just what makes a banana a banana.

Anything that would get rid of the piece-trading aspect of Warmachine would make it an entirely different game. That means the complaint here is less "Warmachine has this flaw" and more "I wish I was playing some game other than Warmachine, albeit one with simliar themes and the same models".

I may not play Warmahordes, but I do think I can offer a bit of outside perspective, as I play 40k. (I would play Warmahordes, but I can only afford one tabletop game at the moment)

From what the OP is describing and Warmahordes's turn structure, prolonged battles are possible, but not currently likely.

When two models become engaged in combat, are they considered "locked in combat", where they can't simply move out of the fight? That's one suggestion for prolonging fights, as now escape is impossible.

Another measure of CC effectiveness is how easy it is to actually hit something. In 40k, prolonged battles are the norm because it's actually quite hard to hit people in CC; two similarly skilled models will only hit each other around 1/2 the time, barring any special modifiers.

Warmahordes uses the same "to hit" and "to wound" principle as 40k, so changes to this system would prolong the battles.

However, I was under the impression that people played Warmahordes because it's faster paced and the fights are over quickly (especially in comparison to 40k).

This isn't a simple rule though, this is a main game mechanic.

I know it's not a popular opinion, but don't play the game if you don't like one of the FUNDAMENTAL rules of it.

Yes, terrain rules and the fact some factions can ignore that terrain can be a little imbalanced... Unless you are a good player and can counter it.

Yes, watching a model charge your model and destroy it in one round, changing your game plans can be annoying... Unless you are a good player and can counter it.

Basically, Warmahordes has its core rules, everyone knows them before they start playing the game and there is nothing "broken" because they can all be dealt with... If you are a good player and can counter it.

The most "broken" rule and easily visible flaw is damage transfer in Hordes. It makes one of the two victory conditions in the game nigh on impossible against certain lists.

I honestly don't see this as a problem.

You don't have to "piece trade" if you set up properly. Or sometimes it's worth trading my 8 point gladiator to throw behemoth backwards into charge range of my bronzeback & beat him to an oily pulp.

It's all about risk:reward as is any game. Set up properly, and more importantly BUY CHAFF. I come from WHFB and for certain armies, having 2-4 units you KNOW will be thrown away to die, but in return mess up your opponents positioning can win games. So I guess I'm quite used to saying "Yep, you can eat my praetorian swordsman, my bronzeback is hungry and you need fattening up!"

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

What I am getting at is that there is no interplay between the two models - one gets into melee and simply obliterates the other without reprisal, which is totally contrary to the fantasy the game is trying to sell.

considering the 'fantasy' is about over the top violence, beating the scrap out of your opponent with overwhelming force etc, Id argue that the vision of the game is evoked pretty well on the table top.

And remember - a model is just a model. It's part of a greater whole. There what counts.

And we're talking jacks and beasts. What about infantry? Is it ok for A warbeast, or even another infantry model to 'fly across table' and murder a fellow infantryman? Stick a sword in him, there's not much else to argue...

Doesn't 40k have this exact same problem except it occurs with one side utterly destroying the other at range?

 TheNewBlood wrote:

When two models become engaged in combat, are they considered "locked in combat", where they can't simply move out of the fight? That's one suggestion for prolonging fights, as now escape is impossible.

They are considered engaged, which gives extra defense against shooting(and the possibility that if a shot misses it might hit one of the other models in the combat).

Models are always free to leave engagement range. But if they do this then the enemy model's they leave get a free strike. A free melee attack with a bonus to hit and a boosted damage roll.

Escape is allowed, but at a cost. A boosted damage attack roll can do serious damage.

You may want to consider one of the tough factions where the models aren't feeble girly boys like Cygnar jacks.

I'm talking about swole models like Tiberion with Defender's Ward cast on him and under effect of Xerxis feat whilst enemy beast is under the effect of an Agoniser Howl. He's then equivalent to ARM27. Good luck smashing that in a round.

You can create anvils in the game. It just takes a bit of work.

And if you want a survivable caster? PBorka with Iron Flesh, Earthborn animus on him hiding behind a wall conjured by Janissa, whilst within range of an active Krielstone aura, after being topped off by his keg carrier.

DEF19 in melee (DEF21 vs. most shooting), ARM23 in melee and has good odds to wander out of melee if you damage him. Can also have 6 transfers. Is immune to most stationary and to all KD effects.

Purification sadly leaves him at DEF14 ARM21, which ain't too shabby I guess.


Gaz

I don't see piece trading as one of the issues in the game.

Piece trading keeps the game aggressive and moving along at a good pace.

It's like caster kills. It's another aspect of the game to keep it exciting and always give you a chance.

Both are aspects that people may or may not like, but they are core concepts to the game.

I also don't think infernal rulings are an issue either. Most game companies don't even have official rule gurus, especially GW. And PP also has annually updated Errata.

Terrain could be better. Most notably to me is it is all considered 2D for the most part. Very few rules for going up and down. But certainly not a deal breaker.

The worse issue is model balance. But overall I think PP does a great job on that. With so many models and so many rules having them all 100% balanced is impossible. The fact that they keep most of them playable at some level actually says a lot about the game to me. That said, balance is one of those things a company should always try to improve even if they will never get 100%.

This rant sounds like it comes from someone that has played only a couple games and has judged the entire game based on those few games.

Warmachine/Hordes is basically fine; it's the players that sometimes need "tweaking".

On the infernal issue. They actually do an amazing job because every ruling is double checked with the developers(thats what a "checking" in the thread means)

Any rules which don't have a checking means that the question was either asked and checked before or its a simple question that doesn't require a checking.

 Grey Templar wrote:
On the infernal issue. They actually do an amazing job because every ruling is double checked with the developers(thats what a "checking" in the thread means)

Any rules which don't have a checking means that the question was either asked and checked before or its a simple question that doesn't require a checking.

You have to love that PP cares so much for their games.

I think the turn structure and piece trading are integral to the way the game is right now and actually support more diversity in lists.

Starting with the turn structure, that's what defines many special rules and army synergies (ie they'd be useless without the i go, you go structure). Take Cryx for example: strong debuff faction with majority low stat troops (yes banes are a thing, but they hit unusually hard and are still only have MAT 6, for example purpose I'm thinking more mechanithralls), what I'm getting at is that many factions rely on layered buffs or debuffs that can easily be negated by changing the turn structure. Throwing down something then having the opponent go and remove it before you can make use of it makes lower quality troops (or warnouns) that relied on that buff/debuff to do work not worth taking. I think it would make the game more spammy of "elite" units.

That's not to say you don't have options on the enemy turn. Things like admonition, counter charge, and defensive strike are very powerful, often game changing. Changing the structure devalues those rules a bit.

Going on to piece trading, I think it allows more diversity in what people do. Some people like to make the most durable lists possible (like mentioned, tibbers with defenders ward, or the trolls miserable meat mountain style list) to make it harder to piece trade with them, or to raise the piece trade 'value' of something through support (it now requires a heavy to kill that arm stacked trooper, which can allow me to get ahead on attrition when I counterattack). Another style is to take numerous low value units, buff their attack, and let em go. I'm thinking of lesser warbeast missles, buffed speedy light jacks, etc. If you try to discourage piece trading, those units then only find value against similar units, again making people want to spam only the best stuff. That would actually lead to some huge disparity in playing different factions since some of their "best" stuff is character (so restricted to 1) or they just don't hit the same levels of attack/durability as other factions.

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

What I am getting at is that there is no interplay between the two models - one gets into melee and simply obliterates the other without reprisal, which is totally contrary to the fantasy the game is trying to sell.

considering the 'fantasy' is about over the top violence, beating the scrap out of your opponent with overwhelming force etc, Id argue that the vision of the game is evoked pretty well on the table top.

And remember - a model is just a model. It's part of a greater whole. There what counts.

And we're talking jacks and beasts. What about infantry? Is it ok for A warbeast, or even another infantry model to 'fly across table' and murder a fellow infantryman? Stick a sword in him, there's not much else to argue...

I did mention infantry. They're subject to the same thing, and I think that's a problem too. When, as an example, a Stalker kills an entire block of pikemen without them being able to strike back, that's sort of silly! I don't think that's so bad, though? And I'm not sure it would be any less evocative if the pikemen could try to strike back somehow while they're getting mown down like wheat. With infantry, the thing I'd point to more as undesirable is the way infantry one-round other infantry without retaliation. When these characters are supposedly locked in combat with each other, it doesn't really make much sense that only one side is allowed to attack. Then, as others in the thread have mentioned, we end up with gamey things like putting sacrificial models out ahead to try to blunt the alpha strike.

Thanks to those who have shared their thoughts! They're very interesting. I would like some of you to note, though, that nowhere in my post did I write, "the game is broken because" or "the game sucks because my model dies in one hit." I think there's a design problem here, and I've laid it out here because I am fascinated by it. Warmachine as a whole is a really interesting game to analyse precisely because people actually care about the rules instead of them being a half-baked afterthought, and it's fun to think about what works and what doesn't.

The problem you're having is based on the my turn your turn mechanic of the game. There are models that can intervene during the other player's turn and there are even a few models with the defensive strike rule (attack them before they attack you) but by and large it's just the way the game goes.

As a general rule on my turn I attack you on your turn you attack me. You can look at it as the tide of battle with one side having the initiative first and the other side, if it survives, retaliating. Don't forget that each piece only represents 1 man/beast/whatever. In your Stalker example you could look at it as the Stalker just flailing his sword to the left and right cutting down everything in his way. Not too many normal soldiers are going to be brave enough to step in there and take a poke at him. They'll wait until the Stalker stops or their friends are ready to attack with him and then launch their counter strike.
There is no time scale to the turns. Some could represent seconds others tens of seconds or even a minute.

So don't look at the turn mechanically look at the game fluff wise even during the game and I think that you will be satisfied in that manner.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
When these characters are supposedly locked in combat with each other, it doesn't really make much sense that only one side is allowed to attack

They do attack. In their turn. That's how the game is built mechanically - in my turn, I do my stuff, in your turn, you do your stuff. During your turn, you've got initiative and my guts are too busy trying to defend themselves to attack back. It's always your turn works for skirmish games like infinity, but really gets in the way of the synergy/combo based games pp are wanting to design.

Back in mk1, there was a ridiculously huge list of things that could act outside of their turn. It was one of the things thst bloated and screwed up the game in the end, and pp removed the vast majority of out of activation stuff for a reason.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think your concern is valid, but over blown.

The current rules mechanics are about as good as I think they could get. The only area which needs improvement is internal balance. Certain units and models are far too weak when there is no reason for them to be.

I can't fault PP for occasionally messing up on a unit's rules when it gets released, nobody's perfect, but I do fault them for not rectifying issues that become obvious after the fact. Given how the rules for individual models are released, using errata to fix models which are too weak is an easy thing to do. They've done a little of it, but not enough.

I think this is partially caused by PP being a little too cautious with their releases. Many recently released miniatures over the last few cycles have been conspicuously missing rules, where its obvious it was stronger in the playtesting and then got overnerfed without further testing before release.

We don't need Mk3. We just need maybe a year or so of PP going back and fixing miniatures they messed up the rules for.

Yes Please, I want my decimater to be good please. I want the coolest jack in the Faction to be good.
Seriously, No one uses the books for the rules. No one. Nothing is stopping them from drastically changing rules. Heck, their card system is MADE for this.

Well, then you have the issue of 'how do I know I/my opponent has the most up to date card' which while isn't necessarily a huge issue, I'm not sure the card system is made for it as such.

The one thing that they do have to help in this situation is Warroom. It is made for this. Like didn't they change Rhyas to give her reach, and update the clam jacks to be able to slam without opening their shells.

Warroom is excellent for keeping everyone up to date, and I don't know a single warmachine player who doesn't use it in at least some form.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Well, then you have the issue of 'how do I know I/my opponent has the most up to date card' which while isn't necessarily a huge issue, I'm not sure the card system is made for it as such.

Well they can do a mass updat from time to time.
And isnt part of Warmachine to know all the up to date stuff?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

And isnt part of Warmachine to know all the up to date stuff?

No. It's almost impossible unless you dedicate all your free time to WM/H. Even at the highest competitive levels you generally only know the main competitive builds.

Let's take skorne as say an avg.
13 casters
11 solos (including zaadesh)
1 battle engine
1 collossi
14 units
20 Beasts

Now there's 4 hordes factions and 6 WM factions (Say 5 because ret & convergence are smaller) and we still havent added minions & mercs.

117 casters
99 solos
9 battle engines
9 colosssi
126 units (not including UAs)
180 beasts

NOBODY can know what all of those do. You can look at it & have a general idea of whast they do but to expect someone to know every unit is just not going to happen. And remember that list is esxcluding minions & mercs, excluding the new WM & Hordes books slated for release and counting convergence & ret as one faction so it's a low end estimate at best. Plus you have to remember all the weird synergies & interactions they can have amongst them.

My COC Reciprocators last all game usually. Op is looking for problems where there aren't any.

Things die when they get hit. The solution isn't to give them some ability to hit back without dying. It's to NOT let them get hit in the first place by maximising defense bonuses or distances.

Yeah I don't think you will get many people who actually play Warmachine agreeing with you here OP. The 'entire army goes' with individual unit activations turn structure is one of the fundemental aspects that make Warmachine such an incredible tactical game and is a massive part of what make the game play so smoothly. This is a feature of the game, not a flaw.

Part of the reason 40k (as an example) can end up playing so slowly is that even though it also has an 'entire army goes' turn structure (I'm sure there is a proper name for this) in terms of what players are actually doing this is not how it actually plays out - in some respects it is an alternating 'I go - you go' system. I.e. Player A rolls to hit and wound at I5, Player B rolls saves, then Player B re-rolls failed saves, then Player A rolls hits and wounds at I4, Player B rolls saves, then Player B re-rolls failed saves, then Player B rolls hits and wounds at I4, Player A rolls saves etc etc. This is just a basic example, doesn't even factor in any special rules etc.

You obviously can avoid this scenario if there are no armour saves being rolled, but that happens about as often as Warmachine has the inverse scenario occur (i.e. Tough, Admonition etc).

If you put something in range to be charged by something that can effortlessly kill it then that is completely your fault - you know how hard something hits and how fast it can move - this is an open information game. If it is important you can premeasure it (by moving your caster appropriately) but in either case gauging distances is a skill and is part of being a good player. If you leave your model in range of something that has a 20% chance of killing it then that is also your decision - there is an element of risk involved but the intention is that you get a better reward from it. If you stay completely outside of threat range then again, that is your decision, but you are trading board space and possible scenario points to keep your model alive. These are all perfect examples of what a tactical wargame should be about.

Its interesting that you attribute this to Warmachine specifically as the concept of piece trading exists in pretty much all tactical wargames (and from a general standpoint war/combat in general is about piece trading as well). I would disembark 5 Fire Dragons next to a Land Raider, knowing that the Fire Dragons were absolutely going to die in return, but that is a positive piece trade for me. This is no different from Warmachine because the Land Raider died without making any form of counterblow but had the exact same options available - the player choose to put the Land Raider in that position and it had options available to both mitigate (pop Smoke etc), completely ignore (just be further away) or counter (shoot the Fire Dragons/transport before it could deliver).

If you want to watch giant robots slug it out over several turns, play battletech. In order to avoid piece trading a game must have a much deeper gameplay for individuals than what warmachine has to offer.

I can understand the OP's post, piece trading can sometimes seem a bit... uninspired. But I don't agree that it's a flaw.

My issues, as is most people's, is faction balance, both internally and externally. Take Cygnar for example. Trenchers, in almost every form, are an extreme corner case. The same goes for Long Gunners, Stormguard(base and Silver Line, really) most, (if not all) artillery pieces (without serious list tailoring) and many warcasters, who are the staple of the WM/H army/gaming experience (Darius, again outside of serious list tailoring (I.E. double Stormwall).

With many of the Gargossles being "meh", not to mention the Battle Engines, I'm surprised the PP doesn't do more to ensure that the units, solos and larger centerpiece models aren't given some form of update, whether with errata (or more likely, and plausible) a different UA or upgrade kit.

 Cryonicleech wrote:
I can understand the OP's post, piece trading can sometimes seem a bit... uninspired. But I don't agree that it's a flaw.

My issues, as is most people's, is faction balance, both internally and externally. Take Cygnar for example. Trenchers, in almost every form, are an extreme corner case. The same goes for Long Gunners, Stormguard(base and Silver Line, really) most, (if not all) artillery pieces (without serious list tailoring) and many warcasters, who are the staple of the WM/H army/gaming experience (Darius, again outside of serious list tailoring (I.E. double Stormwall).

With many of the Gargossles being "meh", not to mention the Battle Engines, I'm surprised the PP doesn't do more to ensure that the units, solos and larger centerpiece models aren't given some form of update, whether with errata (or more likely, and plausible) a different UA or upgrade kit.

I really worry about the second generation Colossal's and Gargantuan's. PP listens to the players, and I'm sure they have heard the lamentations of the players over the huge based models. The Stormwall seems like the out liner of huge based effectiveness/power by a significant margin. Some would argue that the Galleon is up there as well, but that's more of a function of the warcasters available to Mercs then how good the Galleon is. On the other end of the spectrum, you have the Mountain King/Archangel, with everything else being closer to that end then the Stormwall/Galleon end.

I... fear? that the second generation will totally eclipse the first generation huge based models and we'll never see them. This is a shame, as some of them, particularly the Archangel, is one of the best models PP has ever produced. The other factions will then learn the heartache of Cygnar: why take anything else when you can take a Stormwall? Stormwall is the answer to everything...

At the same time I don't want another lot of sub par gargossals because they don't want to make the last ones obsolete.

 ImAGeek wrote:
At the same time I don't want another lot of sub par gargossals because they don't want to make the last ones obsolete.

PP is really going to have to work hard to find the sweet spot for the new gargossals. I could see the new model putting the older model out of business in many of the factions.

 Chute82 wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
At the same time I don't want another lot of sub par gargossals because they don't want to make the last ones obsolete.

PP is really going to have to work hard to find the sweet spot for the new gargossals. I could see the new model putting the older model out of business in many of the factions.

Personally I'd almost rather that. At least then I can play one gargossal from the faction competitively, as opposed to having two that are useless. But then I only own the Woldwrath so I'm not too worried about lots of my big expensive models being obsolete. The best option is to errata the old ones to be more useful.

I think we will see improvements. Look at the initial battle engine releases vs the last three (TEP, meat thresher, sacral vault). Worlds of difference.

Goofy ass models.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Goofy ass models.

Clearly.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Goofy ass models.

Clearly.

Don't feed the troll

No, that's seriously why I have never considered playing it. The general appearance of the models is really goofy. It takes what is an issue in 40k and fantasy to 11.

Thanks for the name calling though. Sorry to have an opinion about your goofy looking game.

Some of the earlier models were a little off, but they are Mich nicer now.

Slave- If you have never considered playing the game then why do you bother commenting on it? I get it, you don't like the figures ergo the game is no good. How does your input add to the discussion?

If you could elucidate on your position then maybe an intelligent discussion can occur. What specifically don't you like about the warmahordes models and/or why do you feel the game you choose to play makes better ones? Taste in models is a personal thing and you are certainly entitled to your opinion but just saying "I don't like it" doesn't really lead to much in terms of a discussion.

If you can't have a conversation without calling each other names, I can remove your ability to participate in the conversation.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Slave- If you have never considered playing the game then why do you bother commenting on it?

The thread title literally asks what, in my opinion, is it's greatest flaw.

If you could elucidate on your position then maybe an intelligent discussion can occur. What specifically don't you like about the warmahordes models and/or why do you feel the game you choose to play makes better ones?

Giant Pauldrons, top-heavy clunker machines, different factions are just differently painted giant machines. That's why I've never been interested in it. As I said, the things GW does badly turned up to the extreme.

It's a legitimate complaint. It's why I play hordes as opposed to WM. I don't like the super top-heavy jacks. The beasts look much better imo.

The only WM army I have is ret but I tend to run light on jacks heavy on infantry.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Slave- If you have never considered playing the game then why do you bother commenting on it?

The thread title literally asks what, in my opinion, is it's greatest flaw.

You clearly didn't read the first post then. The entire thread is about a certain fundamental aspect of the game's mechanics.
It's not a vent your opinion thread.

Yeah, totally TLDR. Thought the title was more accurate. Carry on with your game then...lol

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Yeah, totally TLDR. Thought the title was more accurate. Carry on with your game then...lol

You read the title and nothing else, didn't you?

Guilty as charged. I thought I made that clear.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Slave- If you have never considered playing the game then why do you bother commenting on it?

The thread title literally asks what, in my opinion, is it's greatest flaw.

If you could elucidate on your position then maybe an intelligent discussion can occur. What specifically don't you like about the warmahordes models and/or why do you feel the game you choose to play makes better ones?

Giant Pauldrons, top-heavy clunker machines, different factions are just differently painted giant machines. That's why I've never been interested in it. As I said, the things GW does badly turned up to the extreme.

The hell man. In 40k half the factions are just variations of space marines. The warjacks in WM look different. Khador-cygnar-cryx- ret, they are poles apart. The only ones I'd consider to have any similarity in basic build (NOT DECORATION) is menoth.

In regard to the OP, if the game was slowed down how would anyone ever get an assassination except through really janky moves? Pushing abilities would become paramount to move people out of zones. Interesting idea/premise but....ugh, sounds boring

I agree with the general consent of this thread: the things you want describe an entirely different game requiring a complete overhaul from the ground up just to change the core mechanics. Given just how functional and overall excellent the rules are right now, I would be very skeptical that such a rewriting would result in an improved game.

To build on the chess analogy, what would happen if chess pieces were given hit points? Instead of capturing a piece, two pieces would share a square, dealing 1 damage to the other piece per turn. How would this affect the way chess was played?

What I like in Warmachine/Horde is the way rules were written; it's very rigorous and can be a bit "boring" to read, but they are clear and use a lot of universal keywords. Even the "special rules" usually follow the same pattern, so the whole thing can be played smoothly.

To me, the most grievous flaw of this game are its unique characters. You are forced to play with them since you can't create "your own warcaster/warlock" to lead your small force - that and the fact they usually are more powerful/interesting than their generic counterpart when they exist. Thus, all of your games look a bit silly when the Butcher 3 kills for the seventh time Haley 1.

Sure, you can say "it was not the real Haley/Butcher". Even so, it's so repetitive than after a while, you stop trying to justify it.

That's the price of competition, I guess. Still, I believe it's a bit sad you are totally unable to have a "generic unnamed warlock/warcaster" so that you can tell your own story. It doesnt have to be more powerful, just to have the possibility to play with anything other than a special character.

That looks to be more a problem with your meta than the game. If you only bring the same caster every time then it's your own fault that there is no variety in your games. There are over 100 casters in the game and the smallest faction still has 5 choices. Live a little and try someone new. You may lose with the new caster but see if you don't have some fun again.

 Bullockist wrote:
The warjacks in WM look different. Khador-cygnar-cryx- ret, they are poles apart.

Imo, Cryx, Retribution, and Convergence have jacks that really look different from other faction's jack. But Khador, Cygnar, Retribution, and to a lesser degree mercs seems to all have quite similar jacks.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
The warjacks in WM look different. Khador-cygnar-cryx- ret, they are poles apart.

Imo, Cryx, Retribution, and Convergence have jacks that really look different from other faction's jack. But Khador, Cygnar, Retribution, and to a lesser degree mercs seems to all have quite similar jacks.

They really REALLY don't.

The only factions which have even remotely similar jacks are Mercs and Cygnar(because most merc jacks are retired Cygnar designs).

 Sarouan wrote:
What I like in Warmachine/Horde is the way rules were written; it's very rigorous and can be a bit "boring" to read, but they are clear and use a lot of universal keywords. Even the "special rules" usually follow the same pattern, so the whole thing can be played smoothly.

To me, the most grievous flaw of this game are its unique characters. You are forced to play with them since you can't create "your own warcaster/warlock" to lead your small force - that and the fact they usually are more powerful/interesting than their generic counterpart when they exist. Thus, all of your games look a bit silly when the Butcher 3 kills for the seventh time Haley 1.

Sure, you can say "it was not the real Haley/Butcher". Even so, it's so repetitive than after a while, you stop trying to justify it.

That's the price of competition, I guess. Still, I believe it's a bit sad you are totally unable to have a "generic unnamed warlock/warcaster" so that you can tell your own story. It doesnt have to be more powerful, just to have the possibility to play with anything other than a special character.

Sounds like you should go back to 'forging a narrative'

Seriously, unique casters keep the game in some sense of balance. Or each 'build your own' would be boiled down to the most efficient sections by the internet.

And if you've lost seven times in the same match up, step up your game.

Looking through the line, I don't see much difference besides Elf-Jacks and Spooky-Jacks. I'm sure people who play and care about the fluff can tell, but from an outsiders perspective, they're pretty samey.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Looking through the line, I don't see much difference besides Elf-Jacks and Spooky-Jacks. I'm sure people who play and care about the fluff can tell, but from an outsiders perspective, they're pretty samey.

Well, they really really don't look anything like each other and I don't understand how anyone could possibly think that.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Looking through the line, I don't see much difference besides Elf-Jacks and Spooky-Jacks. I'm sure people who play and care about the fluff can tell, but from an outsiders perspective, they're pretty samey.

You're joking, right? They look nothing alike.
You're seriously telling me that you don't see a difference between this:


And this?


You're either blind or live under a bridge.

Actually he's saying just the opposite. He can tell that those look different from all the others. He is saying that he can't see the difference between Khador's Beast 09 and Cygnar's Thunderhead.

That's easy, Beast is painted Red and Thunderhead is painted Blue.

Yeah they look a lot alike

i think Helen Keller could tell the difference between the different jacks.

You guys really should have learned not to feed the trolls by now...

Anyone that plays 40k and claims that he can't tell the difference between the faction warjacks in WM is clearly trolling.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Actually he's saying just the opposite. He can tell that those look different from all the others. Hesaying that he can't see the difference between Khador's Beast 09 and Cygnar's Thunderhead.

He said "Elf jacks" and "Spooky jacks"

 MWHistorian wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Looking through the line, I don't see much difference besides Elf-Jacks and Spooky-Jacks. I'm sure people who play and care about the fluff can tell, but from an outsiders perspective, they're pretty samey.

You're joking, right? They look nothing alike.
You're seriously telling me that you don't see a difference between this:

Spoiler:

And this?

Congratulations, you posted the exact two factions that I mentioned Looked Different!

You're either blind or live under a bridge.

aaaaand reported.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
You guys really should have learned not to feed the trolls by now...

Also, reported.

Anyone that plays 40k and claims that he can't tell the difference between the faction warjacks in WM is clearly trolling.

Must not be me then. I don't play 40K.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:


aaaaand reported.

Also, reported.

Entire posts devoted to saying "reported"
which means the Mods just have to waste a minute clicking the "ignore" button on the report

Not wasting mod time by clicking "report"

Not sure what site you're looking at, but you may want to read my post again.

or

Entire post dedicated to being wrong about another entire post, ironically wasting more time than post it's complaining about.

You pick.

PP consistently applies detailed design vocabularies to each faction. It may not be apparent to someone totally new to WMH but then again the factions are also conveniently color-coded, I guess for the sake of marketing to newbs.

As I said, different factions are just differently painted giant machines.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
As I said, different factions are just differently painted giant machines.

From the POV of someone who knows very little about WMH, I'm sure it seems that way.

But all the same, it is incorrect. Different factions not only paint their machines different colors but have quite different designs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopagnosia

 judgedoug wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopagnosia

I think it's more a matter of lacking interest.

To my wife, for example, most cars with broadly similar body types look the same. To me, they look completely different. The fact that they are indeed very different does not make her anymore interested in cars, however.

To the OP. Do you play in an ultra competitive environment?

People choose there army to win. And defence doesn't win the game.which is even more a factor in ultra competive rings. Forcing the game to be more defensive does nothing to change the player base.

Personally I love pulling out my 3 dedvastators and associated goodies that let them slam for free. This while fun to watch my oppentents frustration is not a gurenteed way to win.

Simplely put people who want to win will choose the most attack-y kill other stuff and not choose defensive stuff.

The exction to this is when the game alows you to hurt people whne you succed in being defensive. Examples being blue/black mill deccks in magic. Lizardman Reversals in the UFC card game as well as reversals in fighting games period. However these are rare in molst games or just plain hard to do.

Only flaw I see is 1q WM factions to 6 Hordes counting merc/minions...give me more warbeasts :-D

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
As I said, different factions are just differently painted giant machines.

Your ignorance of Warmachine continues to astound me.
Most armies are infantry with a handful of jacks at most. There's also cavalry, solos and battle engines to throw in.
Let's look at a typical army. I'm going to assume that you're ignorant of the game and not trolling....because it sure seems the later.
Here's an army that will look similar to my merc army when it's finished.

I see a bunch of individual characters, some long gunners, zombies controlled by a necromancer, some big tough guys and...oh, wait, one jack that looks nothing like any other faction's jack.
This is typical.
Or just continue throwing out inaccurate statements with no basis in fact.

Okay, I did misread your post, but your post is still as incorrect as ever.
Example. Does this...


look like this?

FWIW, he didn't claim that his statement was based on any facts or knoweldge -- it's just his perception. It's also fairly OT so let's move on.

 Manchu wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
As I said, different factions are just differently painted giant machines.

From the POV of someone who knows very little about WMH, I'm sure it seems that way.

.

Definitely. My point was its flaw, mainly why I've never gotten interested.

Ok, I'm done here, unless of course more people want to accuse me of trolling or being blind/brain damaged. Sorry to interrupt your discussion.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
mainly why I've never gotten interested

I have the opposite issue; after a few years, I really fell for the visual style and the fluff. But what the OP describes is what spoils WMH for me.

I'm going to go with Manchu in this discussion. Slave has said he doesn't have much interest in WM. So he isn't really going to pay attention to the differences in the various Jacks.

To me one flower pretty much looks like another (with some color and minor shape variences). I'm sure that a gardener would not think highly of my opinion but that's the way I see it.

As a game, I actually think the materials the models are made out of are the greatest flaw. I had a huge, fully painted troll army, and a smallish legion army. I have minion army baggies waiting to be built for three years now.

When I moved from the UK to Germany, I packed my dudes into a KR Multicase as carefully as a could, and packed that into a padded box. Same with all my warhammer stuff.

None of my warbeasts survived the journey. All of my Warhammer models, all of my infantry and so on, they all made it with maybe an arm off here or there, but my heavy warbeasts were all in pieces. Chipped pieces. They had been pinned and glued and varnished, and now they were just so much chipped crap.

I was so disheartened I closed the case and have never assembled, painted or played with another warmachine model ever since, even though I know they have branched out into awful mould line covered Restic and apparently hard plastic these days.

I can understand Slaves point of view actually. Just briefly looking at the lines, I initially thought the jacks were goofy looking proportion wise.

It was actually the infantry models that got me into the game, and later on I appreciated the differences in jack models. I do think beasts are pretty varied and cool looking though.

There are some great minis out there too. I personally love the Devils Shadow Mutineers, and most models have great details if you take the time to highlight them.

PhantomViper wrote:
You guys really should have learned not to feed the trolls by now...

Anyone that plays 40k and claims that he can't tell the difference between the faction warjacks in WM is clearly trolling.

Do not get me wrong, I really do like the game. I have a 50 point army lead by Captain Gunnbjorn, where I converted most models to give them military cap like Gunnbjorn, cigars, and for a bunch of models including all my battlegroup, they are showing their middle finger to the enemy. I am not saying the miniatures are bad. I am saying Cygnar, Khador and Protectorate jacks looks very similar to me, and that is part of why I went for Horde instead.

 Sarouan wrote:
What I like in Warmachine/Horde is the way rules were written; it's very rigorous and can be a bit "boring" to read, but they are clear and use a lot of universal keywords. Even the "special rules" usually follow the same pattern, so the whole thing can be played smoothly.

To me, the most grievous flaw of this game are its unique characters. You are forced to play with them since you can't create "your own warcaster/warlock" to lead your small force - that and the fact they usually are more powerful/interesting than their generic counterpart when they exist. Thus, all of your games look a bit silly when the Butcher 3 kills for the seventh time Haley 1.

Sure, you can say "it was not the real Haley/Butcher". Even so, it's so repetitive than after a while, you stop trying to justify it.

The issue with "create your own" is it's very hard to balance & in the competitive environment it all ends up being the same 2-3 combos. Like in warhammer fantasy against chaos I KNOW his BSB has a 1+ rerollable save & 2+ ward vs flaming, OR it has a 2+ save with a 3+ ward & rerolls 1s.

Also it doesn't have to be "killed" it could be wounded & carried off by comrades, shaken & forced to flee, captured etc. Just help spice the narrative. And there is nothing against saying "This is Vadim. His stats & abilities match Vlad but his model is converted & his name is Vadim with a new backstory"

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
What I like in Warmachine/Horde is the way rules were written; it's very rigorous and can be a bit "boring" to read, but they are clear and use a lot of universal keywords. Even the "special rules" usually follow the same pattern, so the whole thing can be played smoothly.

To me, the most grievous flaw of this game are its unique characters. You are forced to play with them since you can't create "your own warcaster/warlock" to lead your small force - that and the fact they usually are more powerful/interesting than their generic counterpart when they exist. Thus, all of your games look a bit silly when the Butcher 3 kills for the seventh time Haley 1.

Sure, you can say "it was not the real Haley/Butcher". Even so, it's so repetitive than after a while, you stop trying to justify it.

The issue with "create your own" is it's very hard to balance & in the competitive environment it all ends up being the same 2-3 combos. Like in warhammer fantasy against chaos I KNOW his BSB has a 1+ rerollable save & 2+ ward vs flaming, OR it has a 2+ save with a 3+ ward & rerolls 1s.

Also it doesn't have to be "killed" it could be wounded & carried off by comrades, shaken & forced to flee, captured etc. Just help spice the narrative. And there is nothing against saying "This is Vadim. His stats & abilities match Vlad but his model is converted & his name is Vadim with a new backstory"

Here here!
I use a converted Syntherion named "Forge Mistriss Lucia."

I'm also quite happy to lose some customisability in order to gain more balance.

40k/WHFB isn't generally that unbalanced when you look at basic units on basic units, it's when you have overpowered or incorrectly pointed choices that the game starts to lose balance.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:That looks to be more a problem with your meta than the game. If you only bring the same caster every time then it's your own fault that there is no variety in your games. There are over 100 casters in the game and the smallest faction still has 5 choices. Live a little and try someone new. You may lose with the new caster but see if you don't have some fun again.

HisDivineShadow wrote:
Sounds like you should go back to 'forging a narrative'

Seriously, unique casters keep the game in some sense of balance. Or each 'build your own' would be boiled down to the most efficient sections by the internet.

And if you've lost seven times in the same match up, step up your game.

It was just an example; I didn't play seven times Butcher 3 vs Haley 1. In fact, I play Minions (Gatormen), Circle Orboros and Protectorate of Menoth.

This is not about losing or winning, you didn't understand my point. It's just about the relation between our games and the fluff/official story. When you play Warmachine/Horde, you feel like everything happens only because of the special characters and that all the "nameless 'casters/warlocks" are just here to be slaughtered by them - or at least, can't do anything important for the sake of storytelling.

That's the trouble of only using special characters; they can't truly die. So, all these "warcaster/warlock kills" do actually nothing permanent. And you can see in the story through all the expansions where are the limits of such a situation (which is why the next expansion for Warmachine should be interesting, since PP said someone well known by the players will die in the fluff).

I don't even talk about the weirdness of putting a "former version" of a special character against an Epic one of another, while both can't exist chronogically at the same time. But then, it may be "someone different but with similar powers". Can be funny to see so many Cygnaran warcasters seem to have a gift in temporal magic and are female.

But of course, competitive players don't care about the fluff. Nothing wrong here, it's just a playstyle - but that doesn't mean it has to be the only one.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:


The issue with "create your own" is it's very hard to balance & in the competitive environment it all ends up being the same 2-3 combos. Like in warhammer fantasy against chaos I KNOW his BSB has a 1+ rerollable save & 2+ ward vs flaming, OR it has a 2+ save with a 3+ ward & rerolls 1s.

Also it doesn't have to be "killed" it could be wounded & carried off by comrades, shaken & forced to flee, captured etc. Just help spice the narrative. And there is nothing against saying "This is Vadim. His stats & abilities match Vlad but his model is converted & his name is Vadim with a new backstory"

Thank you for that answer!

Yes, I understand it is mainly for the balance and that options are usually more restricted in 40k/Battle nowadays because of that reason as well (at least, compared to before). Still, I think it would be possible to create "generic characters" based on roles (for example, something like a tank/support/ranger archetype, a bit like in some RPGs) with very limited options like armament and generic spell lists.

For very specialized characters, the named ones would still be here. It would be nice for a campaign with possibilities of gaining experience or something like that. Maybe in the future, who knows?

About the narrative, of course you can use the same tricks for any other game when you play a named character on the long term. It's just that if the "still alive in the end" trick is used all the time, then it gets used quickly and there is no feeling of "true danger" for this character if he can always escape with no fail. It's the same thing for everything, in fact - and that goes for 40k and their damned special "whatever, I'm Immortal!" characters.

For Battle, problem was solved since everything is destroyed in the end. But hey, it's just a bubble in the universe.


Honestly, I like Warmachine/Horde for the pure "game" content. Fluff is original, but I feel players who like more this part can be a bit bothered by the way it's represented in the game; it's in fact very rigid and gives little space to personnalization. That goes for the figurines as well..."official" conversions are quite severely framed when you compare with GW.

 Sarouan wrote:

But of course, competitive players don't care about the fluff.

Except, you know, for those competitive players who really enjoy reading it all, and could explain to you the Lion's Coup in its entirety, retell the story of Northwatch's final days, or discuss in depth any of the other rich stories in the universe. Apart from those competitive players, sure.

Which game do you play where you in your game you kill a major character and it is reflected in the company's fluff? Are you saying that in your meta when a character is killed then you never use it again (up to and including his particular stats and special ability combo)? The official fluff is like most movies/tv series. People only care about the main character(s). No one cares about special guest star Agent X or any one whose name appears under the word "with" in the credits.

You're right, I don't see your point. Why can't you just make your own narrative and go with that. If you're concerned about special characters then make a chart that you use at the end of every game. If the caster or special character is "killed" then roll on a chart to see if they are truely dead or merely wounded or driven off the field of combat. Then have your group stick with that result. If you're that worried about the official story that you can't stand the thought of a "chornologically challenged match up of casters" then how do you deal with other games? I take it you never play historically based wargames with a "what if" twist. Or do you have problems when Napoleon wins the battle of Waterloo on your table. I doubt that you walk away from such games and say "Well that was silly. It just shouldn't happen that way." It seems to me that you're the one being too restrictive on your imagination. You can only see what is on the table and don't see what could be rather than what is.

And, there is no reason to think that "competitive players" don't care about fluff. That's like saying that "fluff players" don't need to roll the dice and don't really care about the rules of the game. "It's obvious by the fluff that X is much more powerful than Y so just remove Y from the board now." Sounds asinine but thats the corallary to your "competitive" vs "fluff" statement.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Sounds asinine but thats the corallary to your "competitive" vs "fluff" statement.

No, this is the corallary.

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

You know for warcasters to gain as much experience as they have, they have to participate (and even lose) in quite a few battles. Some timing issues aside (like you said, certain primes vs epics, etc.) it stands to reason that a lot of our player battles could happen in universe. And each one that ends in assassination just leaves the character wounded or forces them to withdraw.

Personally i don't have a problem having each caster being a main character that I can't really change. It works for me in any other literary work, so why should I demand that in my miniature game? Besides, if I really want to make my own warcaster, you can totally do it in the iron kingdoms RPG (which still essential uses the warmachine system).

Ive only watched a half dozen or so games, but were all be people who are really into it and competitive,

just seemed to me like the guy who got first turn started taking key models off the other guys side, and it was game over from the first turn.

I fully admit I only know what I have seen, but in just over a half dozen games I didnt see one where I couldnt tell what the outcome was going to be after the first turn, one guy always seemed to cripple the other in the first turn and that was it.


also, aesthetics wize, while there are some good models, most look ridiculous like some GW guy made them while on PCP... such huge shoulder pads lol but when you pay that much for a model, you want it to be convertable, posable, and cool looking to paint, there just doesnt seem to be that much freedom in the hobby aspect, most places around here discourage stand ins, conversions, ect ect from what I see/hear.

just seemed to me like the guy who got first turn started taking key models off the other guys side, and it was game over from the first turn.

Sounds more like 40k to me.

And you're sure it was first turn? Only about 5% of casters can manage tricks to do any kind of damage to enemy models before they've had a turn. It is certainly quite possible for the second player to damage stuff on their first turn, but only if the first player has advanced too far forwards.

I'd be interested in which casters/ factions were involved, if you can remember please?

As I said, far more like many many 40k games I played than any WM games I've played.

there just doesnt seem to be that much freedom in the hobby aspect,

Fair point. If you want good rules and good company rules support, play WM. If you want better models and conversions play GW stuff.


Gaz

Gazzor wrote:


Fair point. If you want good rules and good company rules support, play WM. If you want better models and conversions play GW stuff.


Gaz

I would also say GW writes good rules (not perfect OBS, but they are good), perhaps WMH is better at rules (I think they are simpler, and better up kept then 40k for sure, more fun is debatable though), maybe say excellent rules even, but what is the point of a miniatures game if not the miniatures themselves?

that being said, I have numerous 40k armies, many want to go 2nd as null deploy and progressive scoring are things in 40k. Also generally though you are able to choose to have a really important lynchpin that if you lose it early, you are done for, or to choose a list where that is not the case.


And while WMH might have a tighter rule set, its also less complicated (for all the good and bad that brings) it doesnt seem to take advantage of it as much as I would like, I feel like im watchin army scale rules on a squad level game, like it borrows just a little too much from 40k in some ways that dont work for it.

for example, to fix the large impact of unit trading,

They could easily work in an initiative system so that units interact with each other, and you can even do simultaneous actions so that each unit feels important (which makes sense given the squad level scale of the game) i go you go isnt the best at this scale IMO.

unit trading is much more pronounced at the squad level when one or two units lost almost always changes the game, and maybe its just every list I have seen, but they all have the castor lynchpin i dont think you can really build a list without them.

its not that all the games I saw lost castors first turn, its that they lost a key unit or two that first turn, and that was it, it just snowballed from there in a predictable fasion, I dont like that I as an untrained player was predicting the out come so easily...

maybe i shouldnt complain and just bet $ on the games


all in all WMH looks like a good game though, glad to see the communities start to embrace the hobby aspect more

Losing key models in first turn? You sure you weren't watching a 40k game? Most first turns involve running your models forward and getting them in position to strike next turn.

I also love when people who never played a game have so much insight on how the game should be played. Got to love the internet

If/when they come out with a third edition I'd like to see options for battle group commanders that aren't warcasters or warlocks.

Archduke Runewood is a General and should be in charge of the army because he's the Archduke of East Midlunds with a mustache worthy of his rank. I don't care how good at gun fighting some alcoholic lieutenant is, he's not really in charge. I'm fine with things drastically falling apart with a Warcaster kill on the warjack side of things and to a lesser extent the other models, but it shouldn't be the Check Mate. Taking out all the enemy Commander units should be a checkmate, not just the wizard. It'd also make it more plausible to play more aggressively with your casters. They should be the Queen piece, not the King piece. The most powerful model on the board, not the most vulnerable. Losing the Queen is bad on its own but in some circumstances it might be necessary.

 Col. Tartleton wrote:
If/when they come out with a third edition I'd like to see options for battle group commanders that aren't warcasters or warlocks.

Archduke Runewood is a General and should be in charge of the army because he's the Archduke of East Midlunds with a mustache worthy of his rank. I don't care how good at gun fighting some alcoholic lieutenant is, he's not really in charge. I'm fine with things drastically falling apart with a Warcaster kill on the warjack side of things and to a lesser extent the other models, but it shouldn't be the Check Mate. Taking out all the enemy Commander units should be a checkmate, not just the wizard. It'd also make it more plausible to play more aggressively with your casters. They should be the Queen piece, not the King piece. The most powerful model on the board, not the most vulnerable. Losing the Queen is bad on its own but in some circumstances it might be necessary.

The issue with that is, how do you balance it? A war caster has an arsenal of spells, and the feat to a lesser degree (suppose you could give a battle commander a feat, makes sense, mini-feats do exist) and how would a battle commander compensate? You couldn't even give him WJ points, since they have to be spent on battle group, plus, you'd be stuck with marshalled jacks, and that seems like a severe handicap. I'm not sure how it would work.

In regards to removing caster kill, sure, try it. We do it occasionally, it's a lot of fun, but fundamentally it changes little in your games. You still have to be insanely careful with your caster, because they can do so much. Once you lose them, no more feats, spells, beasts or jacks (except marshalled). It rewards heavy infantry armies, but even they can't really cope with an army that still has functioning giant stomps, and buffs on their infantry units, and debuffs your own.

Good ideas, but not sure how it would work is all.

Game decided from first turn?
I've literally never seen it.
Most games I play aren't decided until the very end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:


but what is the point of a miniatures game if not the miniatures themselves?

The game.

If you say you've never seen a game be decided on the first turn, then you've never seen someone stuff up deployment and turn 1 against a competent eDenny player. It definitely happens. But the circumstances for it to happen, and the frequency, are so corner case that it isn't exactly a weak point of the game, more if T, U, V, W, X, Y and i the imaginary number all happen at once, you can get a game decided then.

Note that's not to say that you don't get match ups where you see someone lose all hope because "oh no I can't beat eLylyth I'll die" and just give up and not play properly, but that's hardly a fault of the rules, more the player not wanting to try.

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 Col. Tartleton wrote:
If/when they come out with a third edition I'd like to see options for battle group commanders that aren't warcasters or warlocks.

Archduke Runewood is a General and should be in charge of the army because he's the Archduke of East Midlunds with a mustache worthy of his rank. I don't care how good at gun fighting some alcoholic lieutenant is, he's not really in charge. I'm fine with things drastically falling apart with a Warcaster kill on the warjack side of things and to a lesser extent the other models, but it shouldn't be the Check Mate. Taking out all the enemy Commander units should be a checkmate, not just the wizard. It'd also make it more plausible to play more aggressively with your casters. They should be the Queen piece, not the King piece. The most powerful model on the board, not the most vulnerable. Losing the Queen is bad on its own but in some circumstances it might be necessary.

The issue with that is, how do you balance it? A war caster has an arsenal of spells, and the feat to a lesser degree (suppose you could give a battle commander a feat, makes sense, mini-feats do exist) and how would a battle commander compensate? You couldn't even give him WJ points, since they have to be spent on battle group, plus, you'd be stuck with marshalled jacks, and that seems like a severe handicap. I'm not sure how it would work.

In regards to removing caster kill, sure, try it. We do it occasionally, it's a lot of fun, but fundamentally it changes little in your games. You still have to be insanely careful with your caster, because they can do so much. Once you lose them, no more feats, spells, beasts or jacks (except marshalled). It rewards heavy infantry armies, but even they can't really cope with an army that still has functioning giant stomps, and buffs on their infantry units, and debuffs your own.

Good ideas, but not sure how it would work is all.

He'd have a feat by merit of being a character, maybe Battle Plans instead of spells, and infantry/solo points. War Casters and Warlocks should be more focused on Jack and Beast synergy whereas Commanders or Chieftains could be more Infantry focused, maybe with a command mechanic akin to Focus/Fury that improves infantry. To compensate you can always take Journeymen.

I mean it'd have to be a rewrite of the game, which is why I suggested for a third edition.

 easysauce wrote:
Ive only watched a half dozen or so games, but were all be people who are really into it and competitive,

just seemed to me like the guy who got first turn started taking key models off the other guys side, and it was game over from the first turn.

I fully admit I only know what I have seen, but in just over a half dozen games I didnt see one where I couldnt tell what the outcome was going to be after the first turn, one guy always seemed to cripple the other in the first turn and that was it.

Depends on the skill level, caster / faction / list matchup and playstyle. If you have a good player with legion using an alphastrike list or a good skorne player with the molik missile against someone below their level, sure going 1st wins.

Personally I almost always give my opponent 1st turn. I like to counter deploy. I was helping teach a khador player counter-deployment and his cryx opponent plopped bile thralls on the flank, so I told him to put his assault commandos opposite them & shut them down (Hooray immunity corrosion!) Got a big slow nasty on your right flank, cool let me put my stuff on the opposite side so you spend a few turns having to slide down the line.

If you're good with ranges 1st turn isn't huge. You can always retreat a few inches (ok killbox could cause issues just be smart) in order to create the necessary gap. I'd much rather have the advantage of knowing how my opponent deployed and being able to counter it.

Now, I'll admit to my lack of knowledge, having only played a single small scale game, but to return to the OP: As I understand it, you main concern is the lack on interaction between models. E.g. my Khador Manhunter outflanks and goes for a kill. The enemy loses its model without ever getting a single strike, any retaliation has to be done by other models. Not very epic.

Compare this to a melee in 40k where both player's units get to strike in each other's turn. A challenge issued will emphasize this even more as the two heroes have a go at each other. In these rules the battle clearly becomes a duel-like situation (between units and even more so between characters).

Now, the problem. This (the 40k) process locks the two units in combat. They will grind each other down (as fleeing from melee is really not an option unless you have special rules – e.g. Hit & Run). So the two units will spend a number of turns grinding each other down and nothing really happens apart from dice rolling.

To me this is quite a downer with 40k. I play orks (I'm fluff-oriented and hence fairly heavy on boyz) and actually rely on this tactic to some degree. And frankly once you've charged there's not really much tactics left, only statistics.

So in this regard I would actually say that the OP's original problem is one of the benefits of WMH, which attracts me to the game. You can still play attrition tactics I guess, but by choice and not because the rules demand it. (Ok this can go for 40k as well, if you choose other factions, but still, once you're in melee...)

To me the main drawback is the narrower space for narrative development. Once a character is down, it's down ... It would've been easy to have, as someone mentioned above, generic type warcasters (e.g. "Khador Sniper Captain") without names, while still retaining the named ones (we all love Sorsha, right? *Willow flashback*). I'm also somewhat disappointed when it comes to model quality but it may have been back luck. I think I like the game but I want to like the miniatures and the storytelling just as much.

To me, it's the way PP have pushed the competitive element that has pushed me away from WM. I love the fluff, and despite some of the poor models, I've enjoyed painting some of them.

It's just (and this is my local meta, YMMV) it seems to attract the super-competitive, won't buy a model till he's googled the best list, crush noobs and gloat types. There are exceptions, but you want a game you can play a variety of armies. The amount of times I was told 'the rulebook says you have to be as competitive as possible'.

And I don't feel the game lends itself to a continuing narative campaign. It's a series of set pieces, rather that a flowing story on the board. It's a Michael Bay movie with crappy CGI.

I want to love it. I have far too much Cryx. but it doesn't put it's arm around me and draw me in. It just kicks me me the then shouts 'should have worn a cup noob'.

Maybe people ruin a game, not a system.

P.s does anyone want to buy some Cryx?

The Division Of Joy wrote:
To me, it's the way PP have pushed the competitive element that has pushed me away from WM. I love the fluff, and despite some of the poor models, I've enjoyed painting some of them.

It's just (and this is my local meta, YMMV) it seems to attract the super-competitive, won't buy a model till he's googled the best list, crush noobs and gloat types. There are exceptions, but you want a game you can play a variety of armies. The amount of times I was told 'the rulebook says you have to be as competitive as possible'.

And I don't feel the game lends itself to a continuing narative campaign. It's a series of set pieces, rather that a flowing story on the board. It's a Michael Bay movie with crappy CGI.

I want to love it. I have far too much Cryx. but it doesn't put it's arm around me and draw me in. It just kicks me me the then shouts 'should have worn a cup noob'.

Maybe people ruin a game, not a system.

P.s does anyone want to buy some Cryx?

Sounds like your group needs to play some of the campaign/ league put out by PP. They are a lot of fun as you build your hero by gaining experience while playing games. Your hero can also get wounded during the league which effects his stats during the league until you rest him/her. It's not a competition league and our shop is having a lot of fun.

 Chute82 wrote:
Sounds like your group needs to play some of the campaign/ league put out by PP. They are a lot of fun as you build your hero by gaining experience while playing games. Your hero can also get wounded during the league which effects his stats during the league until you rest him/her. It's not a competition league and our shop is having a lot of fun.

Any link to this stuff ...? Campaigns with possibilities of character development rather than sequential battles are just what I'm up for.

 pinkmarine wrote:

Any link to this stuff ...? Campaigns with possibilities of character development rather than sequential battles are just what I'm up for.

http://privateerpress.com/organized-play/leagues/broken-roads

PhantomViper wrote:

 pinkmarine wrote:

Any link to this stuff ...? Campaigns with possibilities of character development rather than sequential battles are just what I'm up for.

http://privateerpress.com/organized-play/leagues/broken-roads

Awesome, a million or so thanks!

 easysauce wrote:

Ive only watched a half dozen or so games, but were all be people who are really into it and competitive
just seemed to me like the guy who got first turn started taking key models off the other guys side, and it was game over from the first turn.
I fully admit I only know what I have seen, but in just over a half dozen games I didnt see one where I couldnt tell what the outcome was going to be after the first turn, one guy always seemed to cripple the other in the first turn and that was it.

To be fair, for people that are apparently ‘really into it’ and ‘competitive’, they’re pretty bad at it! Outside of seriously janky lists against extremely poorly thought out deployments from extremely poor players, no one will cripple the other guy in the first turn. Taking models out on the first turn itself is extremely unusual, bar lucky deviation rolls from AOE attacks.

The alphastrike in this game is utterly brutal. Present your whole army on a plate for my alphastrike, and yes, I will destroy it. But good players know this, and will plan accordingly to mitigate the alpha, with things like clever positioning, chaff, tarpitting, control elements etc. there are plenty ways to blunt the alpha, such as defensive buffs (defense, armour), use of cover/concealment, recursion (stuff that dies comes back) or control elements (things that bugger up shooting/movement etc)

A lot of players plan on going second.it has its advantages. You get to deploy further onto the field, you get to counter deploy against your opponents positioning, react to his moves, and most importantly, control points are scored from the second player’s second turn onwards. Fine, they don’t go first, but they have every chance of clearing the zones and getting a leg up in the scenario game.

The games you watched? Yeah, they sound like beginners playing from a very basic and limited playbook rather than veterans.

 easysauce wrote:

also, aesthetics wize, while there are some good models, most look ridiculous like some GW guy made them while on PCP... such huge shoulder pads lol but when you pay that much for a model, you want it to be convertable, posable, and cool looking to paint, there just doesnt seem to be that much freedom in the hobby aspect, most places around here discourage stand ins, conversions, ect ect from what I see/hear.

Eh, no. Go google HMS griffon, stormhammer, the crimson harvest, legion of mechablight etc. the materials (metal) is more unforgiving, but there is plenty freedom in the hobby.

The big shoulder pads make sense as well in the context of the gam world. This is a world where twelve foot tall robots and monsters exist and are the norm. It makes sense to have top heavy armour to absorb and deflect those overhand blows (I cant see a juggernaut doing uppercuts to be honest). Just like how Mantic dwarves have their heaviest armour on their shoulders and heads.

 easysauce wrote:

I would also say GW writes good rules (not perfect OBS, but they are good), perhaps WMH is better at rules (I think they are simpler, and better up kept then 40k for sure, more fun is debatable though), maybe say excellent rules even, but what is the point of a miniatures game if not the miniatures themselves?

Playing the game?

 easysauce wrote:

that being said, I have numerous 40k armies, many want to go 2nd as null deploy and progressive scoring are things in 40k. Also generally though you are able to choose to have a really important lynchpin that if you lose it early, you are done for, or to choose a list where that is not the case.

In 40k you pick a faction, only to arbitrarily find out its incredibly broken or incredibly underpowered. Effectively, you can be ‘done for’ before you even play a game.

Fi also, progressive scoring is the whole basis of steamroller. Scenarios. Read them.

 easysauce wrote:

And while WMH might have a tighter rule set, its also less complicated (for all the good and bad that brings) it doesnt seem to take advantage of it as much as I would like, I feel like im watchin army scale rules on a squad level game, like it borrows just a little too much from 40k in some ways that dont work for it.

You can do more with the game mechanics in WMH than you can do in 40k. ‘complicated’ is not a good thing. don’t mistake 40k’s clunky interface and bloat for depth or complexity.

 easysauce wrote:

for example, to fix the large impact of unit trading,

They could easily work in an initiative system so that units interact with each other, and you can even do simultaneous actions so that each unit feels important (which makes sense given the squad level scale of the game) i go you go isnt the best at this scale IMO.

Firstly 'fixing' implies there is a problem. It's not. It's a feature, not a bug.

Drags the game out though. Having an initiative just skews the game for high-int models. Igougo is, unfortunately essential to the synergy/combo based gameplay of warmachine. While ‘its always your turn’ benefits games like Infinity, WMH is a larger model-count game. Being able to interrupt my turnis a big ‘break’ in the system, and PP removed the vast majority of ‘I activate during your turn’ stuff in the changeover from Mk1 to Mk2 for a reason. In any case, each unit already feels important. Unlike 40k, where everyone is a wound counter for the guy with a meltagun, every model in WMH can get involved. You just do it during your turn.

 easysauce wrote:

unit trading is much more pronounced at the squad level when one or two units lost almost always changes the game, and maybe its just every list I have seen, but they all have the castor lynchpin i dont think you can really build a list without them.

In a game where 30 models is a ‘huge’ army, losing a squad of ten is rightly seen as a big deal.

 easysauce wrote:

its not that all the games I saw lost castors first turn, its that they lost a key unit or two that first turn, and that was it, it just snowballed from there in a predictable fasion, I dont like that I as an untrained player was predicting the out come so easily...

Losing a key unit or two on first turn? Rubbish. Lists, or it didn’t happen. In any case, see above. You saw six games. You’re not an expert, and neither are the people you’ve been watching. Saying things were predictable from there simply says less about the players you were watching rather than the game.

If/when they come out with a third edition I'd like to see options for battle group commanders that aren't warcasters or warlocks.

Archduke Runewood is a General and should be in charge of the army because he's the Archduke of East Midlunds with a mustache worthy of his rank. I don't care how good at gun fighting some alcoholic lieutenant is, he's not really in charge. I'm fine with things drastically falling apart with a Warcaster kill on the warjack side of things and to a lesser extent the other models, but it shouldn't be the Check Mate. Taking out all the enemy Commander units should be a checkmate, not just the wizard. It'd also make it more plausible to play more aggressively with your casters. They should be the Queen piece, not the King piece. The most powerful model on the board, not the most vulnerable. Losing the Queen is bad on its own but in some circumstances it might be necessary

Aye, but Runewood isn’t a warcaster either. He’s a lay preacher to the church, effectively. That alcoholic lieutetnant is in charge for a reason. He’s not just a ‘wizard’. that displays a fundamental lack of appreciation for the nature of a warcaster. Whilst drunk or hungover, Caine can win whole battles all on his lonesome. Any one with the warcaster talent is immediately taken away, and put through thorough officer training as well – they’re leaders and commanders as well as fighters. Caine is contantly operating beyond the borders of cygnar taking out enemies before they can even become threats. He can operate on a fluid level that the regular army simply cannot do – its too ponderous. Caine is gifted, and can control warjacks. That makes his a tremendous battlefield asset, and one that needs a level of tactical command and operational freedom to work. Runewood is a guy with a moustache, nowhere near as vital or as useful. There is a reason why warcasters are in charge, and why the regular army bends over backwards to support and accommodate them.

It is the checkmate condition for a reason too. There are literally dozens of warcasters in the entire setting. Not thousands, or even hundreds. Dozens. they’re that rare and vital to operations. Plus is makes sense to me that your most powerful piece is also your most vital, not just a throwaway tool. Warcasters are not a throwaway asset in the fluff, and the game represents that.

There are battles and skirmishes in the iron kingdoms all the time where warcasters aren’t present. But seriously, they’re kinda boring and uninteresting by comparision. You might as well go play 40k because it wont have any of the interesting aspects that make warmachine warmachine.

The Division Of Joy wrote:

It's just (and this is my local meta, YMMV) it seems to attract the super-competitive, won't buy a model till he's googled the best list, crush noobs and gloat types. There are exceptions, but you want a game you can play a variety of armies. The amount of times I was told 'the rulebook says you have to be as competitive as possible'.

Those idiots should actually 'read' page5. Rulebook also says don't be a dick, and doesn't look too kindly on crushing noobs or gloating. Really? That's three of the five principles of page5 they're crapping on. They're the kind of people that give gamers a bad name....

The Division Of Joy wrote:

And I don't feel the game lends itself to a continuing narative campaign. It's a series of set pieces, rather that a flowing story on the board. It's a Michael Bay movie with crappy CGI.

You can do it though. My mate does, back home. You're only gonna get out what you're willing to put in, and I think there are enough narrative style campaign ideas out there that can be ported over. All they need is agreement and cooperation of the players and a wee bit of creativity.

I'm not sure I agree on the last point, but I'm willing to be converted.

I'll check out that campaign link then. As I said, I really want to like the game. I've bought Captain Gunbjorn as he's a cool model and I live almost every Trollblood figure, so will be doing that as a long term slow burn project.

I just find the WM community either a little 'intense' (mostly online though, it's very defensive) or unwelcoming, and the games I've played a little soulless. Hopefully that'll change, because the mechanic is great (one of the reasons I'm loving Guild ball at the moment) and the fluff is awesome.

 pinkmarine wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 pinkmarine wrote:

Any link to this stuff ...? Campaigns with possibilities of character development rather than sequential battles are just what I'm up for.

http://privateerpress.com/organized-play/leagues/broken-roads

Awesome, a million or so thanks!

Also, practically every No Quarter will have one or more narrative missions inside, so you should also check them out if that interests you.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
What I like in Warmachine/Horde is the way rules were written; it's very rigorous and can be a bit "boring" to read, but they are clear and use a lot of universal keywords. Even the "special rules" usually follow the same pattern, so the whole thing can be played smoothly.

To me, the most grievous flaw of this game are its unique characters. You are forced to play with them since you can't create "your own warcaster/warlock" to lead your small force - that and the fact they usually are more powerful/interesting than their generic counterpart when they exist. Thus, all of your games look a bit silly when the Butcher 3 kills for the seventh time Haley 1.

Sure, you can say "it was not the real Haley/Butcher". Even so, it's so repetitive than after a while, you stop trying to justify it.

The issue with "create your own" is it's very hard to balance & in the competitive environment it all ends up being the same 2-3 combos. Like in warhammer fantasy against chaos I KNOW his BSB has a 1+ rerollable save & 2+ ward vs flaming, OR it has a 2+ save with a 3+ ward & rerolls 1s.

Also it doesn't have to be "killed" it could be wounded & carried off by comrades, shaken & forced to flee, captured etc. Just help spice the narrative. And there is nothing against saying "This is Vadim. His stats & abilities match Vlad but his model is converted & his name is Vadim with a new backstory"

Actually, correction: You can't do that in most tournament environments. The model has to be mostly made of the original model (80% IIRC) so it's easily recognizable as the model it is. For casual games go ahead and convert to your heart's content, but heavy conversions are not allowed in tournaments (also the reason why you cannot convert an unreleased model e.g. the Grolar and use it in a tournament).

On a more personal note, what attracted me to WMH in general was the fact the game seemed focus on competitive rules without catering to casual gameplay. I like that the rules basically tell you to play hard or don't play at all and not to whine "but that's overpowered" but suck it up and deal with it. This causes issues in casual metas where people still want to hash out negotiations before games e.g. "Can you not use Haley2 tonight? I don't like playing against her" which IMHO has no place in the game, and I say that as a Press Ganger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 pinkmarine wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 pinkmarine wrote:

Any link to this stuff ...? Campaigns with possibilities of character development rather than sequential battles are just what I'm up for.

http://privateerpress.com/organized-play/leagues/broken-roads

Awesome, a million or so thanks!

Also, practically every No Quarter will have one or more narrative missions inside, so you should also check them out if that interests you.

Most of them are refights, however designed for two specific factions, sometimes with specific army composition. I do sort of wish they would have a campaign type of publication or more thematic scenarios (as opposed to the standard Steamroller scenarios) like they had in one of the MkI books that featured a complete 4-player campaign with special missions. Even if it was a series in NQ with different scenarios (again perhaps similar to the MkI style which was itself similar to 40k type of missions with attacker/defender, things like having to hold an objective or unbalanced forces) more suited to casual gameplay.

I do, for instance, think that there should be scenarios where you don't have a warcaster but a ranking Jack Marshal. In fact I recall some NQ scenarios that did this, and also killing the opponent's commander didn't win the game as there were other conditions. The game doesn't really support that, however. Most Jack Marshals, for instance, are pretty poor (disclaimer: I play Khador so most of ours are bad) and some of the NQ scenarios are grossly imbalanced to the point of some making me scratch my head how they are intended to be played.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
What I like in Warmachine/Horde is the way rules were written; it's very rigorous and can be a bit "boring" to read, but they are clear and use a lot of universal keywords. Even the "special rules" usually follow the same pattern, so the whole thing can be played smoothly.

To me, the most grievous flaw of this game are its unique characters. You are forced to play with them since you can't create "your own warcaster/warlock" to lead your small force - that and the fact they usually are more powerful/interesting than their generic counterpart when they exist. Thus, all of your games look a bit silly when the Butcher 3 kills for the seventh time Haley 1.

Sure, you can say "it was not the real Haley/Butcher". Even so, it's so repetitive than after a while, you stop trying to justify it.

The issue with "create your own" is it's very hard to balance & in the competitive environment it all ends up being the same 2-3 combos. Like in warhammer fantasy against chaos I KNOW his BSB has a 1+ rerollable save & 2+ ward vs flaming, OR it has a 2+ save with a 3+ ward & rerolls 1s.

Also it doesn't have to be "killed" it could be wounded & carried off by comrades, shaken & forced to flee, captured etc. Just help spice the narrative. And there is nothing against saying "This is Vadim. His stats & abilities match Vlad but his model is converted & his name is Vadim with a new backstory"

Actually, correction: You can't do that in most tournament environments. The model has to be mostly made of the original model (80% IIRC) so it's easily recognizable as the model it is. For casual games go ahead and convert to your heart's content, but heavy conversions are not allowed in tournaments (also the reason why you cannot convert an unreleased model e.g. the Grolar and use it in a tournament).

On a more personal note, what attracted me to WMH in general was the fact the game seemed focus on competitive rules without catering to casual gameplay. I like that the rules basically tell you to play hard or don't play at all and not to whine "but that's overpowered" but suck it up and deal with it. This causes issues in casual metas where people still want to hash out negotiations before games e.g. "Can you not use Haley2 tonight? I don't like playing against her" which IMHO has no place in the game, and I say that as a Press Ganger.

That's the thing that got me interested in WMH too. I like going into bad matchups and seeing how I can deal with it. It's a great game, and its not for everybody, there are plenty of people in my local area that have complained about how competitive it is, and that's fine. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's a delicious cup personally.
is

WayneTheGame wrote:

Actually, correction: You can't do that in most tournament environments. The model has to be mostly made of the original model (80% IIRC) so it's easily recognizable as the model it is. For casual games go ahead and convert to your heart's content, but heavy conversions are not allowed in tournaments (also the reason why you cannot convert an unreleased model e.g. the Grolar and use it in a tournament).

Um, yes You can.

It depends on how clever you are with your conversions. Models have to be Based on the original model, With like for like weapon swaps. But that won't stop you using vlads stats, and even having the core model, just jazzed up with other bits. It's not hard.

This is a 100% tournament legal 'ahem' 'gun carriage'. http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?192274-HMS-Griffon-Gun-Carraige-to-Airship-Conversion
Heck, I have a female fenris conversion thst is 100% legal. There are other armies like stormhammer and the Crimson harvest that are so heavily converted very little remains of the original identity of the army whose rules they're using. But they're still 100% tournament legal. The legion of mechablight simply gets a free pass from its awesomeness.

Heavy conversions are allowed, and ultimately, Are frequently oked by the to. Saying otherwise is simply incorrect Wayne.

WayneTheGame wrote:

On a more personal note, what attracted me to WMH in general was the fact the game seemed focus on competitive rules without catering to casual gameplay. I like that the rules basically tell you to play hard or don't play at all and not to whine "but that's overpowered" but suck it up and deal with it. This causes issues in casual metas where people still want to hash out negotiations before games e.g. "Can you not use Haley2 tonight? I don't like playing against her" which IMHO has no place in the game, and I say that as a Press Ganger.

And yet, you can play warmachine casually too. It's not a casual versus competitive thing Wayne, it's simply a clearly written, watertight set of rules that is functional for a wide variety of play styles. Competitive is not the only horse in town, nor should it be. And I say that as a competitive player.theres every reason to not want to play haley2 or to turn every game into srs bsness. Sometimes it's ok to just do something silly to blow off steam. For me, I don't mind her, but if all you do all the time is reach for her, and play the same list constantly, I will mind you. Because you are being boring, and playing a very limited game, and that affects me. Page 5 is more that 'play competitive', and play hard or don't play at all. it's play your best, and respect your opponent. It's about not being a dick, its about branching out, covering new ground and not just relying on the same old tired formulas and lists. It's about being creative in what you play, and how you play.

That's something I did not know, the SR packet seems to indicate that heavy conversions are NOT allowed as 80% of the model needs to be the original model so it's recognizable.

WayneTheGame wrote:
That's something I did not know, the SR packet seems to indicate that heavy conversions are NOT allowed as 80% of the model needs to be the original model so it's recognizable.

The Steamroller packet(2015) has no such 80% stipulation. It just says that the majority of the converted model has to be from the original AND that it must be readily identifiable as the model its being used for. Weapons also have to be of the same type as the original. And anything which uses an upgrade kit specifically has to use those parts. So really, the most you could require of the original miniature is 50%, and that it subjectively looks like the original model enough so there is no confusion. All of this comes with the caveat that a TO is free to waive this requirement for any conversion they deem acceptable. If you get the TO's permission ahead of time you are free and clear, something you should do with any game, not just warmachine. This rule isn't there so TOs are required to strictly examine every converted model for adherence to the standards, its to provide a standard in case someone brings a really confusing conversion that causes problems so the TO can say "Hey, that conversion is too confusing, I'll have to disallow it" and not have to deal with a player saying "but the rules don't say I can't use X!"

The purpose of this is to prevent confusion and ambiguity. IE: People shouldn't lose a game because their opponent's pDenny didn't look like pDenny.


I have a Crusader that I converted into Fire of Salvation, with lots of free hand detailing and greenstuff flames pouring out of its mace. It isn't the proper model, but I have yet to have a TO not allow it, and never had an opponent complain about. Especially when it also has "Fire of Salvation" painted on its front arc. It doesn't follow the standard, but it causes no confusion and with TO approval the requirement is waived.

 easysauce wrote:

I would also say GW writes good rules (not perfect OBS, but they are good), perhaps WMH is better at rules (I think they are simpler, and better up kept then 40k for sure, more fun is debatable though), maybe say excellent rules even, but what is the point of a miniatures game if not the miniatures themselves?

No GW rules are not "good". Pretty much every other table top game out there surpasses GW rule writing. GW is pretty much at the bottom.

 easysauce wrote:
that being said, I have numerous 40k armies, many want to go 2nd as null deploy and progressive scoring are things in 40k. Also generally though you are able to choose to have a really important lynchpin that if you lose it early, you are done for, or to choose a list where that is not the case.

If your list has a "lynchpin" that you can't win without then it is the list-builders fault, not the games fault. Most of the games I win I am losing the piece trading battle but setting up an assassination or scenario win.

 easysauce wrote:
And while WMH might have a tighter rule set, its also less complicated (for all the good and bad that brings) it doesnt seem to take advantage of it as much as I would like, I feel like im watchin army scale rules on a squad level game, like it borrows just a little too much from 40k in some ways that dont work for it.

for example, to fix the large impact of unit trading,

You mention piece trading like it is a flaw. It's a feature and part of the game. It's actually how I play other TT games as well. It just works better in WM/H.

 easysauce wrote:
unit trading is much more pronounced at the squad level when one or two units lost almost always changes the game, and maybe its just every list I have seen, but they all have the castor lynchpin i dont think you can really build a list without them.

its not that all the games I saw lost castors first turn, its that they lost a key unit or two that first turn, and that was it, it just snowballed from there in a predictable fasion, I dont like that I as an untrained player was predicting the out come so easily...

maybe i shouldnt complain and just bet $ on the games

Well, the caster lynchpin is built into the system. Again, most people who play see it as a feature, not a flaw. I do agree that after turn 2 you can often see a definite trend as to who is "winning". But I find most games last 3-4 turns. However, unlike a lot of other TTs just killing models isn't going to win. You still need scenario points and assassination is always a fear. There are certain armies and casters specifically, that can win the game all by themselves. They can lose 1 model or all their models, but if they are in the right position they win.

 easysauce wrote:
all in all WMH looks like a good game though, glad to see the communities start to embrace the hobby aspect more

There are definitely more "gamers" than "modelers" in WM. But again, it isn't really a flaw to most. That said, there are some spectacular paint jobs and conversions that I've seen in WM/H that are on par with anything in other games. In a lot of ways I find the WMH army painting to be more creative as I can spend more time and creativity on each individual unit. You also usually only have one of each unit so you aren't painting the same thing over and over.

Well, maybe not if you are this guy... http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?16328-Cygnar-to-the-Max!!!&highlight=cygnar

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
What I like in Warmachine/Horde is the way rules were written; it's very rigorous and can be a bit "boring" to read, but they are clear and use a lot of universal keywords. Even the "special rules" usually follow the same pattern, so the whole thing can be played smoothly.

To me, the most grievous flaw of this game are its unique characters. You are forced to play with them since you can't create "your own warcaster/warlock" to lead your small force - that and the fact they usually are more powerful/interesting than their generic counterpart when they exist. Thus, all of your games look a bit silly when the Butcher 3 kills for the seventh time Haley 1.

Sure, you can say "it was not the real Haley/Butcher". Even so, it's so repetitive than after a while, you stop trying to justify it.

The issue with "create your own" is it's very hard to balance & in the competitive environment it all ends up being the same 2-3 combos. Like in warhammer fantasy against chaos I KNOW his BSB has a 1+ rerollable save & 2+ ward vs flaming, OR it has a 2+ save with a 3+ ward & rerolls 1s.

Also it doesn't have to be "killed" it could be wounded & carried off by comrades, shaken & forced to flee, captured etc. Just help spice the narrative. And there is nothing against saying "This is Vadim. His stats & abilities match Vlad but his model is converted & his name is Vadim with a new backstory"

Actually, correction: You can't do that in most tournament environments. The model has to be mostly made of the original model (80% IIRC) so it's easily recognizable as the model it is. For casual games go ahead and convert to your heart's content, but heavy conversions are not allowed in tournaments (also the reason why you cannot convert an unreleased model e.g. the Grolar and use it in a tournament).

Actually I can. Here's a direct quote from the 2015 Masters packet:

his discretion, an EO can make exceptions to
these rules to approve any reasonable conversion.

A converted model must contain a majority of parts from the
WARMACHINE or HORDES model for which the rules were
written

Majority is 50%, Event Organizer can override restriction & the restrictions is utter bs. I have custom converted models & I have just put the original, modified to look dead, as a corpse on the base and the "new" guy stole his weapons. Technically I am not breaking any rule, but even if I was the Event Organizer can just say "I'll allow it" as the conversion rules give him explicit leeway to do just that.

The only hard no-no is using another companies intellectual property / copyrighted material. Such as converting all of my Man-O-War units into 40k Terminators and using 40k iconography.

I see piece trading as the heart of any solid vs game system. For table top games it means that positioning is the most important thing.

I have played games where you win through the will of the dice gods, what you brought to the table, the will of the narrative and I think Othello beats them out on depth of strategy.

The Division Of Joy wrote:


It's just (and this is my local meta, YMMV) it seems to attract the super-competitive, won't buy a model till he's googled the best list, crush noobs and gloat types. There are exceptions, but you want a game you can play a variety of armies. The amount of times I was told 'the rulebook says you have to be as competitive as possible'.

I'd love to know exactly who these people are...

I suspect I know a few of the individuals you are referring to, but not a single one of them plays at the FLGS.

Just curious.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

The only hard no-no is using another companies intellectual property / copyrighted material. Such as converting all of my Man-O-War units into 40k Terminators and using 40k iconography.

Even this restriction only applies to PP sponsored events that are recorded for streaming. The average player will likely never encounter this.

For what it's worth, I always thought one of (perhaps not the biggest) flaw of WM/H was that DEF was a single stat (while MAT and RAT are separate). An elite swordsman should be significantly harder to hit with a sword than a gun.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

The only hard no-no is using another companies intellectual property / copyrighted material. Such as converting all of my Man-O-War units into 40k Terminators and using 40k iconography.

Even this restriction only applies to PP sponsored events that are recorded for streaming. The average player will likely never encounter this.

For what it's worth, I always thought one of (perhaps not the biggest) flaw of WM/H was that DEF was a single stat (while MAT and RAT are separate). An elite swordsman should be significantly harder to hit with a sword than a gun.

And you know what, if you did that, it might add a new level of strategy to the game. It might be interesting to see it in a game, at least to me, and unlike what OP complains about, it doesn't require you to rebuild the whole system, but it would make some changes in a possible 3rd edition.

 FakeBritishPerson wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

The only hard no-no is using another companies intellectual property / copyrighted material. Such as converting all of my Man-O-War units into 40k Terminators and using 40k iconography.

Even this restriction only applies to PP sponsored events that are recorded for streaming. The average player will likely never encounter this.

For what it's worth, I always thought one of (perhaps not the biggest) flaw of WM/H was that DEF was a single stat (while MAT and RAT are separate). An elite swordsman should be significantly harder to hit with a sword than a gun.

And you know what, if you did that, it might add a new level of strategy to the game. It might be interesting to see it in a game, at least to me, and unlike what OP complains about, it doesn't require you to rebuild the whole system, but it would make some changes in a possible 3rd edition.

I actually like that suggestion!

 MWHistorian wrote:

 FakeBritishPerson wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

The only hard no-no is using another companies intellectual property / copyrighted material. Such as converting all of my Man-O-War units into 40k Terminators and using 40k iconography.

Even this restriction only applies to PP sponsored events that are recorded for streaming. The average player will likely never encounter this.

For what it's worth, I always thought one of (perhaps not the biggest) flaw of WM/H was that DEF was a single stat (while MAT and RAT are separate). An elite swordsman should be significantly harder to hit with a sword than a gun.

And you know what, if you did that, it might add a new level of strategy to the game. It might be interesting to see it in a game, at least to me, and unlike what OP complains about, it doesn't require you to rebuild the whole system, but it would make some changes in a possible 3rd edition.

I actually like that suggestion!

It already exists. Some models have "duelist" which adds to their DEF in Melee (Kayazy Eliminators for example).

Yeah, or they have unbreakable. Which is additional armour in close combat.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yeah, or they have unbreakable. Which is additional armour in close combat.

*Unyeilding.

 Grimtuff wrote:
It already exists. Some models have "duelist" which adds to their DEF in Melee (Kayazy Eliminators for example).

There is though, a difference between having a few select models with an extra rule and a general re work to add a stat to models. As changes go it could really be done by extending the stat bar a little. If 40k players can learn 9 stats then 8 shouldn't be too hard for WM/H players.

Most models fall into either ranged units or melee units and suffer a sort of 'middling' of their DEF stat. Elite swordsmen should have a high melee defense but average ranged defense, like 15/12. Instead we get something like 13, inaccurately representing either stat. Conversely something like gun mages (just as an example) may be excellent at avoiding incoming fire but are woefully under trained once someone gets up close to them.

Warcasters in particular could benefit. Who do you think you have better chances of landing a hit on? A Journeyman caster or The Butcher? Because as is the Butcher- master of melee- is easier to hit at range and up close.

To be fair the Butcher is pretty damn big, slow and heavily armoured.

I like the one stat, people who are good at fighting in melee actually have another rule which helps them. Stealth.

 Kojiro wrote:


There is though, a difference between having a few select models with an extra rule and a general re work to add a stat to models. As changes go it could really be done by extending the stat bar a little. If 40k players can learn 9 stats then 8 shouldn't be too hard for WM/H players.

More moving parts means it's easier for something to break down. There are a number of special rules in place already that allows for either armour or defense to be modified against ranged or melee attacks. Seems that an extra stat isn't needed.

 Kojiro wrote:

Most models fall into either ranged units or melee units and suffer a sort of 'middling' of their DEF stat. Elite swordsmen should have a high melee defense but average ranged defense, like 15/12. Instead we get something like 13, inaccurately representing either stat. Conversely something like gun mages (just as an example) may be excellent at avoiding incoming fire but are woefully under trained once someone gets up close to them.

Not all swordsman are elite. The ones that are get duellist. Seems fair. As for ranged units or melee units, I don't think what you say is strictly true - my Nyss hunters want a word. As do my winter guard. Bears strength is a thing,

 Kojiro wrote:

Warcasters in particular could benefit. Who do you think you have better chances of landing a hit on? A Journeyman caster or The Butcher? Because as is the Butcher- master of melee- is easier to hit at range and up close.

He's seven and a half feet tall, four feet wide, and he wears a modified berserker for his warcaster armour. He's easy to hit for a reason - there's a lot of him to aim at.

Deadnight wrote:
More moving parts means it's easier for something to break down. There are a number of special rules in place already that allows for either armour or defense to be modified against ranged or melee attacks. Seems that an extra stat isn't needed.

Well that's the discussion isn't it? Yes there are rules that modify ARM and DEF but those would presumably be removed as redundant. But that's kinda my point- the game already modifies specific DEF values but only does so sporadically.

Not all swordsman are elite. The ones that are get duellist. Seems fair. As for ranged units or melee units, I don't think what you say is strictly true - my Nyss hunters want a word. As do my winter guard. Bears strength is a thing,

No of course not everyone is elite, I use them only to highlight the flaw. Of course some models will have a matching ranged and melee def but they're not the ones who are hamstrung here. Stormblades for example are supposed to be the premier swordsmen of Cygnar, yet in a straight up fight vs say, their inferior cousins the Sword Kinights the numbers are exactly even (in terms of who hits who). Nyss are stand out example- the exception, not the norm. Bear's strenght is a buff, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. Buff can change anything.

He's seven and a half feet tall, four feet wide, and he wears a modified berserker for his warcaster armour. He's easy to hit for a reason - there's a lot of him to aim at.

Which is why he should have a low Ranged DEF. But in melee, he's a truly frightening monster- and superbly skilled.

 Kojiro wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
More moving parts means it's easier for something to break down. There are a number of special rules in place already that allows for either armour or defense to be modified against ranged or melee attacks. Seems that an extra stat isn't needed.

Well that's the discussion isn't it? Yes there are rules that modify ARM and DEF but those would presumably be removed as redundant. But that's kinda my point- the game already modifies specific DEF values but only does so sporadically.

So you remove a bunch of rules only to replace them with a bunch of other rules that do exactly the same thing? Especially when, as you say below, a lot of units will have the same value for both melee and ranged defense. Yeah, not seeing it...

 Kojiro wrote:

Not all swordsman are elite. The ones that are get duellist. Seems fair. As for ranged units or melee units, I don't think what you say is strictly true - my Nyss hunters want a word. As do my winter guard. Bears strength is a thing,

No of course not everyone is elite, I use them only to highlight the flaw. Of course some models will have a matching ranged and melee def but they're not the ones who are hamstrung here. Stormblades for example are supposed to be the premier swordsmen of Cygnar, yet in a straight up fight vs say, their inferior cousins the Sword Kinights the numbers are exactly even (in terms of who hits who). Nyss are stand out example- the exception, not the norm. Bear's strenght is a buff, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. Buff can change anything.

What makes them inferior? Storm blades are mat7, but wear incredibly heavy plate armour and a second layer of electrically insulated armour, I find it hard to believe that they can completely ignore it. Their def is fine.

Bears strength shows units can do both melee and ranged. Pigeonholing units into either ranged or melee doesn't work when units can do work in both, buffs are a part of this. We don't talk about things 'naked', we talk about things in the context of the various synergies available to them.

Furthermore, What's the point of having two separate defense stars, when most units will have identical values for both? Seems kinda pointless and excessive. There's a word for it. It's called 'bloat'. Things like duelist, defensive line, stealth and unyielding already allow for relevant units to have de facto different values against melee and ranged attacks.

 Kojiro wrote:

He's seven and a half feet tall, four feet wide, and he wears a modified berserker for his warcaster armour. He's easy to hit for a reason - there's a lot of him to aim at.

Which is why he should have a low Ranged DEF. But in melee, he's a truly frightening monster- and superbly skilled.

Mat9 and terror cover the 'truly frightening monster' and 'superbly skilled' aspects. Def14 is not exactly high either for ranged attacks. Similarly in melee, he's seven and a half feet tall and four feet wide. Kinda hard to miss.

Uppn further examination I have to vote "no" on the new idea.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Uppn further examination I have to vote "no" on the new idea.

Hey, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Deadnight wrote:

So you remove a bunch of rules only to replace them with a bunch of other rules that do exactly the same thing?

No you remove a bunch of rules and replace them with a single, elegant number.

Furthermore, What's the point of having two separate defense stars, when most units will have identical values for both?

Talk about a leading question. Clearly you and I disagree on the idea that most will have identical values.

There's a word for it. It's called 'bloat'. Things like duelist, defensive line, stealth and unyielding already allow for relevant units to have de facto different values against melee and ranged attacks

The idea here is- between editions- to remove rules that can be replicated by a simple number. Numbers are, by their nature, clearer and more precise and almost certainly less cumbersome than any written rule. I'd be very hesitant to call that bloat.

Similarly in melee, he's seven and a half feet tall and four feet wide. Kinda hard to miss.

See we've strayed here into fluff land- use Vilmon if you want. The basic idea is that the more skilled a swordsman is, the harder he will be to hit in melee. That skill however does not translate equally well to avoiding bullets. But it also goes the other way- some models might be fast, agile and difficult to shoot but be less skilled in melee combat, such as Pygs, Stonewards, Daughters or just about anything dwarven.

To put it another way, your MAT might be 2 points higher than your opponents but it doesn't make a difference when they attack you. A Stormblade officer needs a 7 to hit a Daughter of the Flame. Yet she needs a 6 to hit him! Despite the fact he is supposedly a significantly better than melee fighter than her. Two stats would allow units to have the melee defense their skill (or lack there of) demands while allowing them to have an equally appropriate ranged defense.

Of course, could be you're right, and most units would have similar stats but I don't think that's right. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

I honestly wouldn't mind RDf/MDf as separate stats in Mkiii. That said I'm fine with it as is. Either way works for me.

It doesn't over complicate things & removes the need for certain special rules. But it would need to be a complete change of models as well as a redress of point costs so likely it would only happen during an edition change.

 Kojiro wrote:

No you remove a bunch of rules and replace them with a single, elegant number.

Will it be a single number for all rolls, or will things like cover and concealment still be a thing?

It won't be a single elegant number though. It's a single number on several hundred warcasters, warlocks, warbeasts, warjacks, units, solos etc. there is nothing elegant about it.

 Kojiro wrote:
talk about a leading question. Clearly you and I disagree on the idea that most will have identical values.

you actually said it yourself.

 Kojiro wrote:

The idea here is- between editions- to remove rules that can be replicated by a simple number. Numbers are, by their nature, clearer and more precise and almost certainly less cumbersome than any written rule. I'd be very hesitant to call that bloat.
.

As mentioned it's not a single number. It's a single number on a hell of a lot of stuff. That is replacing a handful of rules.
Thryre also a lot less flavourful and 'flat'. Thry will still probably be modified by things like cover and concealment, so despite the addition of an extra 'ahem' elegant number, you are still left with things that modify stats based on circumstance. So if that's the case, what's wrong with the current system where a handful of rules exist that offer stat mods based on specific circumstances? In any case, I still fail to see how your system offers an improvement.

 Kojiro wrote:

See we've strayed here into fluff land- use Vilmon if you want. The basic idea is that the more skilled a swordsman is, the harder he will be to hit in melee.

There's more to melee that just mat. Your argument falls apart when a model is so damned big that you can't fail to hit. All mat9 of the butcher doesn't stop the fact that he is as large as your average horse. There is a lot of him to hit. Parrying with your sword isn't all you do to block attacks.

 Kojiro wrote:

That skill however does not translate equally well to avoiding bullets. But it also goes the other way- some models might be fast, agile and difficult to shoot but be less skilled in melee combat, such as Pygs, Stonewards, Daughters or just about anything dwarven.

Fast, agile but less skilled in melee? Speed7, def 15 and mat5. Done. Agile and difficult to hit doesn't stop when someone gets close to you. If you can move fast enough that he can't get a bead on you with a rifle, you can move fast enough to dodge a sword thrust. The fact that you talk about daughters in that 'less skilled' category ruins your argument- those girls are hardcore. You can't talk about a unit with acrobatics and anatomical precision as being 'less skilled'. Or dwarves being fast agile and difficult to shoot either.

Those abilities you want to create to represent different abilities in different circumstances already exist. Defensive line, duellist, immobile, unyielding etc. and as I said already, a handful of effective rules beats everything needing a new stat.

 Kojiro wrote:

To put it another way, your MAT might be 2 points higher than your opponents but it doesn't make a difference when they attack you. A Stormblade officer needs a 7 to hit a Daughter of the Flame. Yet she needs a 6 to hit him! Despite the fact he is supposedly a significantly better than melee fighter than her. Two stats would allow units to have the melee defense their skill (or lack there of) demands while allowing them to have an equally appropriate ranged defense.

should it? Parrying with your sword isn't all you do. Best trick I learned in boxing was don't be there when the punch lands. Only thing better than having to block a punch is not having to block it at all by ducking, dodging and weaving out of the way.

Simply put, with regard to your example, Her agility > his swordsmanship. Not hard really. And he wears the heeaviest damned infantry armour cygnar generally issues out. It will affect his ability to be mobile. She doesn't. She is brutally efficient with her strikes as well as extremely athletic and nimble. Being skilled with a sword isn't the end of the story.

Like I said. Two stats is fine. But we have a system already in place where things like duelist give you precisely what your looking for, where you get bonuses to def/armour based on appropriate circumstances and you don't need to reinvent the wheel.

 Kojiro wrote:

Of course, could be you're right, and most units would have similar stats but I don't think that's right. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

You said in yourself.

Deadnight wrote:
Will it be a single number for all rolls, or will things like cover and concealment still be a thing?

I see no reason to remove them.

It won't be a single elegant number though. It's a single number on several hundred warcasters, warlocks, warbeasts, warjacks, units, solos etc. there is nothing elegant about it.

Actually yes, it is. A single number on any given stat card is going to be clearer and simpler than any written rule. What you appear to be arguing is that the burden placed on players by adding such a number would be too great.

Now if you're changing your argument from from 'it would be bloat' to 'more numbers is too great a burden on the players' that's ok. BUT I would point out that 40k uses 9 stats and Infinity uses 8 to WM/H current 7. You can argue that 7 is better but there is clearly evidence to that more numbers is not an prohibitive burden. If 40k players can handle it I have no doubt WM/H players can.

But let's just think about this for a second. Why couldn't we just add a split stat to units requiring such a split, like Dragoons do for armour? A simple line in the rule book about to clarify it's always Ranged/Melee. There's no additional burden on a player to remember a unit has a split DEF stat than there is to recall it has a given special ability.

As mentioned it's not a single number. It's a single number on a hell of a lot of stuff. That is replacing a handful of rules.

So put the split stat on the handful of models.

Thryre also a lot less flavourful and 'flat'

So rather than having '16/14' on MK3 Kayazy you'd rather '14 with Duelist: This model gains +2 DEF against melee attack rolls '?
And I thought you were arguing against bloat.

Thry will still probably be modified by things like cover and concealment, so despite the addition of an extra 'ahem' elegant number, you are still left with things that modify stats based on circumstance.

This just makes no sense.

So if that's the case, what's wrong with the current system where a handful of rules exist that offer stat mods based on specific circumstances? In any case, I still fail to see how your system offers an improvement.

Because a split stat- which you apply only to a handful of or models if you want- is cleaner and simpler.

There's more to melee that just mat. Your argument falls apart when a model is so damned big that you can't fail to hit. All mat9 of the butcher doesn't stop the fact that he is as large as your average horse. There is a lot of him to hit. Parrying with your sword isn't all you do to block attacks.

Ugh, it's like you're willfully ignoring the point.

Fast, agile but less skilled in melee? Speed7, def 15 and mat5. Done. Agile and difficult to hit doesn't stop when someone gets close to you.

Let's look at this shall we? Your hypothetical model hits an Knight Exemplar, Stormblade or Dawnguard- all the elite melee troops or their respective factions- on a 7 (58%). The best of their faction hit you back on 8 (41%). Two points less mat and by your own definition, less skilled in melee and it has a 17% higher hit rate.

Or dwarves being fast agile and difficult to shoot either.

Ok the dwarves were miscategorised (long post, got confuzzled). They're not fast and agile but rather slow and cumbersome. They're the other side of the argument. Skilled warriors who are slower but still able to defend themselves very well. The might be, for example, 11/13 (ranged/melee) to represent that their slower, stocky frames don't lend themselves to agility but martial prowess means they're not easy targets in a fight. But they system doesn't support this because it assumes that hitting the slow moving target with a gun is equally difficult to walking up and stabbing it.

should it? Parrying with your sword isn't all you do. Best trick I learned in boxing was don't be there when the punch lands. Only thing better than having to block a punch is not having to block it at all by ducking, dodging and weaving out of the way.

Would it be fair to say you learned to be harder to hit with a punch? Tell me, do you think you became equally harder to shoot?

Right now the system doesn't support variances in melee and ranged defensive capability well. Almost every single unit's ability to avoid getting shot is coincidentally exactly the same as it's ability to defend itself in melee. That seems a bit hokey to me.

 Kojiro wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Will it be a single number for all rolls, or will things like cover and concealment still be a thing?

I see no reason to remove them.

So, you want to replace a system whereby special rules etc affect a models relevant stats in specific circumstances with a ‘flat’ split defence system. Ok, but bear in mind, you’ve just admitted that with your system, a models relevant stats still gets affected by special rules in specific circumstances, like cover/concealment? Yeah, I’m not seeing it.

 Kojiro wrote:

Now if you're changing your argument from from 'it would be bloat' to 'more numbers is too great a burden on the players' that's ok. BUT I would point out that 40k uses 9 stats and Infinity uses 8 to WM/H current 7. You can argue that 7 is better but there is clearly evidence to that more numbers is not an prohibitive burden. If 40k players can handle it I have no doubt WM/H players can.

I don’t necessarily make a distinction between the two. Its still more stuff, and more unneeded stuff that needs to be tracked. Regarding comparisons to either 40k or infinity, I don’t think they’re valid. 40k is a bloated mess of a game, with incredibly cluttered, schitzophrenic, counter-productive and counter-intuitive rules. 9 stats is far too much, especially when you need 4 (WS, I, Attacks, Str) to resolve something like melee combat. In any case most of those 9 values in 40k are a single number - 4. Most of the rest are 3s. It's not hard to memorise. Warmachine is quite a bit more complex. Similarly, with Infinity, while it is a technically brilliant game (and my personal favourite), it rightly gets flack for the excessive complexity and poor implementation of certain aspects of it. N2 was terrible for excessive flowery language and shocking layout issues. And again, some of whats there is not needed. BTS as a stat? Could be represented just as effectively with other mechanisms. What saves Infinity as a functional game is that it is a game where an army is ten dudes. It’s a fifth or a quarter of the size of your average warmachine army. Trying to port the level of complexity you find in Infinity to larger games will quickly lead to a broken down system. Amusingly, for Infinity, despite ‘more’ stats, split defense isn’t a thing. You roll Phy for dodging against melee, and ranged attacks.

 Kojiro wrote:

But let's just think about this for a second. Why couldn't we just add a split stat to units requiring such a split, like Dragoons do for armour? A simple line in the rule book about to clarify it's always Ranged/Melee. There's no additional burden on a player to remember a unit has a split DEF stat than there is to recall it has a given special ability.

Poor examples. Split armour happens on a handful of models of a single unit type (dragoons). Why not, instead of split stats, use a generic series of ‘universal special rules’ that work across the board, and save the stat bloat when split stats must be rolled out across all models?

 Kojiro wrote:

So put the split stat on the handful of models.

You mean, like what’s already in place with USRs applying to a handful of models? You’re re-inventing the wheel to do the exact same job. Pointless.

Besides, weren’t you back pedalling and trying to say that models with the same split def would be a minority?

 Kojiro wrote:

So rather than having '16/14' on MK3 Kayazy you'd rather '14 with Duelist: This model gains +2 DEF against melee attack rolls '?
And I thought you were arguing against bloat.

I am. Duelist is one thing to keep track of, and works whether it’s on a kayazy, or anything else amongst hundreds of models in the game. With your system, There is the 14/16 on the kayazy, the 11/13 on the dwarf, the 12/13 on the long gunner, the 11/12 on the winter guardsmen etc. and then every other warcaster, warlock, warbeast, warjack, solo and unit. It’s a massive amount of needless work for developers, playtesters, and players.

Removing bloat for me is taking things like rapid strike, backswing and cleave and combining thrm into a generic 'you get two attacks with your weapon' rule.

 Kojiro wrote:

Thry will still probably be modified by things like cover and concealment, so despite the addition of an extra 'ahem' elegant number, you are still left with things that modify stats based on circumstance.
This just makes no sense.

See first point. Current rules that modify stats based on circumstances require a trigger. Unyielding works in the specific circumstances of that model being engaged. Defensive line works when in base to base. Duellist works against melee attacks. Specific circumstances.

You’re attempting to replace a limited set of universal rules which are affected by circumstance-based bonuses/penalties with a unique extra stat for hundreds of models, which is nevertheless still affected by circumstance based bonuses/penalties. If you can’t get away from it, why not just use the system as it is, which is both functional and effective?

 Kojiro wrote:

Because a split stat- which you apply only to a handful of or models if you want- is cleaner and simpler.

Only until other things get factored into the equation. And again, there is no real benefit to a split stat as compared to a set of USRs which accomplish the same goal. Plus, weren't you saying earlier thst having the same value for both def's would be a minority?

It's definately simpler (though not easier) but it's also bland. Those usr's add a certain amount of flavour that a number in a statlines never will.

 Kojiro wrote:

Ugh, it's like you're willfully ignoring the point.

And that you lack reading comprehension.

 Kojiro wrote:

Let's look at this shall we? Your hypothetical model hits an Knight Exemplar, Stormblade or Dawnguard- all the elite melee troops or their respective factions- on a 7 (58%). The best of their faction hit you back on 8 (41%). Two points less mat and by your own definition, less skilled in melee and it has a 17% higher hit rate.

Those knights are all wearing frickin plate armour! Of course they’re easier to hit! Christ, its not rocket surgery. Plate armour and nimbleness generally don't go together. Put my dude and your elite warriors against a nimble and agile kayazy eliminator, and it’s a different story.

 Kojiro wrote:

Ok the dwarves were miscategorised (long post, got confuzzled). They're not fast and agile but rather slow and cumbersome. They're the other side of the argument. Skilled warriors who are slower but still able to defend themselves very well. The might be, for example, 11/13 (ranged/melee) to represent that their slower, stocky frames don't lend themselves to agility but martial prowess means they're not easy targets in a fight. But they system doesn't support this because it assumes that hitting the slow moving target with a gun is equally difficult to walking up and stabbing it.

One could argue that being a smaller target at range means they’re harder to hit as well, and that the ‘height issue’ would counter a lot of the ‘natural martial prowess’. Martial prowess isn’t the end of the story. Agility, perception, initiative – they’re all just as crucial to your ability to defend, and they work against threats that are close and far away. Being slower directly affects being able to defend yourself really well.

And why are targets at range 'slow moving'? Assumptions, and all that...

 Kojiro wrote:

Would it be fair to say you learned to be harder to hit with a punch? Tell me, do you think you became equally harder to shoot?

Im a poor example – im def7 against both. I wouldn’t fancy my chances either shooting or stabbing the likes of a charging bruce lee on a battlefield with twelve foot tall werewolves and hundreds of bullets zipping around and explosions and body parts flying everywhere. Especially with a single shot breech loading rifle with appalling range, power and rate of fire.

Then again, great reflexes and agility goes a long way against both. Especially at the ranges warmachine plays at. You can't move faster than bullets, but you can move faster than the guy who is trying to aim at you.

 Kojiro wrote:

Right now the system doesn't support variances in melee and ranged defensive capability well. Almost every single unit's ability to avoid getting shot is coincidentally exactly the same as it's ability to defend itself in melee. That seems a bit hokey to me.

Except where it’s not. You know, when modified by appropriate special rules like duellist, unyielding, force barrier, defensive line, stealth etc.

 Grimtuff wrote:

The Division Of Joy wrote:


It's just (and this is my local meta, YMMV) it seems to attract the super-competitive, won't buy a model till he's googled the best list, crush noobs and gloat types. There are exceptions, but you want a game you can play a variety of armies. The amount of times I was told 'the rulebook says you have to be as competitive as possible'.

I'd love to know exactly who these people are...

I suspect I know a few of the individuals you are referring to, but not a single one of them plays at the FLGS.

Just curious.

None play at the FLGS. That's why I play there and not at the local club.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

The only hard no-no is using another companies intellectual property / copyrighted material. Such as converting all of my Man-O-War units into 40k Terminators and using 40k iconography.

Even this restriction only applies to PP sponsored events that are recorded for streaming. The average player will likely never encounter this.

Actually the 2015 packet includes it for the rules for all Steamrollers, not just the ones run specifically by PP, and the first instance of them enforcing an early version of it was when their head TO arbitrarily banned all models with GW parts at Adepticon, an event they weren't streaming. It is a really stupid rule and I've yet to see any TO outside their own enforce it. You're welcome for it by the way.